Search (141 results, page 1 of 8)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Chan, L.M.: Social bookmarking and subject indexing (2011) 0.12 
    0.12365307 = product of:
  0.16487075 = sum of:
    0.006476338 = weight(_text_:a in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006476338 = score(doc=1806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1806, 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=1806)
    0.10723893 = weight(_text_:et in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10723893 = score(doc=1806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20686594 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.5183982 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
    0.051155485 = product of:
      0.10231097 = sum of:
        0.10231097 = weight(_text_:al in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10231097 = score(doc=1806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205697 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.5063471 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    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
    Type
    a
  2. Aagaard, H.: Social indexing at the Stockholm Public Library (2011) 0.12 
    0.12365307 = product of:
  0.16487075 = sum of:
    0.006476338 = weight(_text_:a in 1807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006476338 = score(doc=1807,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1807, 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=1807)
    0.10723893 = weight(_text_:et in 1807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10723893 = score(doc=1807,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20686594 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.5183982 = fieldWeight in 1807, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1807)
    0.051155485 = product of:
      0.10231097 = sum of:
        0.10231097 = weight(_text_:al in 1807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10231097 = score(doc=1807,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205697 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.5063471 = fieldWeight in 1807, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1807)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    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
    Type
    a
  3. Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008) 0.09 
    0.08722921 = product of:
  0.11630561 = sum of:
    0.008591834 = weight(_text_:a in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008591834 = score(doc=2657,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.16900843 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
    0.042895574 = weight(_text_:et in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042895574 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20686594 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
    0.0648182 = sum of:
      0.040924385 = weight(_text_:al in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040924385 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205697 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044089027 = queryNorm
          0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.023893818 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023893818 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044089027 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2657, 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=2657)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Social tagging empowers users to categorize content in a personally meaningful way while harnessing their potential to contribute to a collaborative construction of knowledge (Vander Wal, 2007). In addition, social tagging systems offer innovative filtering mechanisms that facilitate resource discovery and browsing (Mathes, 2004). As a result, social tags may support online communication, informal or intended learning as well as the development of online communities. The purpose of this mixed methods study is to examine how undergraduate students participate in social tagging activities in order to learn about their motivations, behaviours and practices. A better understanding of their knowledge, habits and interactions with such systems will help practitioners and developers identify important factors when designing enhancements. In the first phase of the study, students enrolled at a Canadian university completed 103 questionnaires. Quantitative results focusing on general familiarity with social tagging, frequently used Web 2.0 sites, and the purpose for engaging in social tagging activities were compiled. Eight questionnaire respondents participated in follow-up semi-structured interviews that further explored tagging practices by situating questionnaire responses within concrete experiences using popular websites such as YouTube, Facebook, Del.icio.us, and Flickr. Preliminary results of this study echo findings found in the growing literature concerning social tagging from the fields of computer science (Sen et al., 2006) and information science (Golder & Huberman, 2006; Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006). Generally, two classes of social taggers emerge: those who focus on tagging for individual purposes, and those who view tagging as a way to share or communicate meaning to others. Heavy del.icio.us users, for example, were often focused on simply organizing their own content, and seemed to be conscientiously maintaining their own personally relevant categorizations while, in many cases, placing little importance on the tags of others. Conversely, users tagging items primarily to share content preferred to use specific terms to optimize retrieval and discovery by others. Our findings should inform practitioners of how interaction design can be tailored for different tagging systems applications, and how these findings are positioned within the current debate surrounding social tagging among the resource discovery community. We also hope to direct future research in the field to place a greater importance on exploring the benefits of tagging as a socially-driven endeavour rather than uniquely as a means of managing information.
    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
  4. Weiand, K.; Hartl, A.; Hausmann, S.; Furche, T.; Bry, F.: Keyword-based search over semantic data (2012) 0.07 
    0.06534681 = product of:
  0.08712907 = sum of:
    0.007931862 = weight(_text_:a in 432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007931862 = score(doc=432,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 432, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=432)
    0.053619467 = weight(_text_:et in 432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053619467 = score(doc=432,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20686594 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.2591991 = fieldWeight in 432, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=432)
    0.025577743 = product of:
      0.051155485 = sum of:
        0.051155485 = weight(_text_:al in 432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051155485 = score(doc=432,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205697 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.25317356 = fieldWeight in 432, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=432)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    For a long while, the creation of Web content required at least basic knowledge of Web technologies, meaning that for many Web users, the Web was de facto a read-only medium. This changed with the arrival of the "social Web," when Web applications started to allow users to publish Web content without technological expertise. Here, content creation is often an inclusive, iterative, and interactive process. Examples of social Web applications include blogs, social networking sites, as well as many specialized applications, for example, for saving and sharing bookmarks and publishing photos. Social semantic Web applications are social Web applications in which knowledge is expressed not only in the form of text and multimedia but also through informal to formal annotations that describe, reflect, and enhance the content. These annotations often take the shape of RDF graphs backed by ontologies, but less formal annotations such as free-form tags or tags from a controlled vocabulary may also be available. Wikis are one example of social Web applications for collecting and sharing knowledge. They allow users to easily create and edit documents, so-called wiki pages, using a Web browser. The pages in a wiki are often heavily interlinked, which makes it easy to find related information and browse the content.
    Source
    Semantic search over the Web. Eds.: R. De Virgilio, et al
  5. Yoon, J.W.: Towards a user-oriented thesaurus for non-domain-specific image collections (2009) 0.05 
    0.054248735 = product of:
  0.072331645 = sum of:
    0.008973878 = weight(_text_:a in 4221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008973878 = score(doc=4221,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 4221, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4221)
    0.042895574 = weight(_text_:et in 4221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042895574 = score(doc=4221,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20686594 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 4221, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4221)
    0.020462193 = product of:
      0.040924385 = sum of:
        0.040924385 = weight(_text_:al in 4221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040924385 = score(doc=4221,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205697 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 4221, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4221)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    This study explored how user-supplied tags can be applied to designing a thesaurus that reflects the unique features of image documents. Tags from the popular image-sharing Web site Flickr were examined in terms of two central components of a thesaurus-selected concepts and their semantic relations-as well as the features of image documents. Shatford's facet category and Rosch et al.'s basic-level theory were adopted for examining concepts to be included in a thesaurus. The results suggested that the best approach to Color and Generic category descriptors is to focus on basic-level terms and to include frequently used superordinate- and subordinate-level terms. In the Abstract category, it was difficult to specify a set of abstract terms that can be used consistently and dominantly, so it was suggested to enhance browsability using hierarchical and associative relations. Study results also indicate a need for greater inclusion of Specific category terms, which were shown to be an important tool in establishing related tags. Regarding semantic relations, the study indicated that in the identification of related terms, it is important that descriptors not be limited only to the category in which a main entry belongs but broadened to include terms from other categories as well. Although future studies are needed to ensure the effectiveness of this user-oriented approach, this study yielded promising results, demonstrating that user-supplied tags can be a helpful tool in selecting concepts to be included in a thesaurus and in identifying semantic relations among the selected concepts. It is hoped that the results of this study will provide a practical guideline for designing a thesaurus for image documents that takes into account both the unique features of these documents and the unique information-seeking behaviors of general users.
    Type
    a
  6. Heckner, M.; Mühlbacher, S.; Wolff, C.: Tagging tagging : a classification model for user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems (2007) 0.05 
    0.05366232 = product of:
  0.07154976 = sum of:
    0.0081919925 = weight(_text_:a in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0081919925 = score(doc=533,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
    0.042895574 = weight(_text_:et in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042895574 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20686594 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
    0.020462193 = product of:
      0.040924385 = sum of:
        0.040924385 = weight(_text_:al in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040924385 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205697 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Recently, a growing amount of systems that allow personal content annotation (tagging) are being created, ranging from personal sites for organising bookmarks (del.icio.us), photos (flickr.com) or videos (video.google.com, youtube.com) to systems for managing bibliographies for scientific research projects (citeulike.org, connotea.org). Simultaneously, a debate on the pro and cons of allowing users to add personal keywords to digital content has arisen. One recurrent point-of-discussion is whether tagging can solve the well-known vocabulary problem: In order to support successful retrieval in complex environments, it is necessary to index an object with a variety of aliases (cf. Furnas 1987). In this spirit, social tagging enhances the pool of rigid, traditional keywording by adding user-created retrieval vocabularies. Furthermore, tagging goes beyond simple personal content-based keywords by providing meta-keywords like funny or interesting that "identify qualities or characteristics" (Golder and Huberman 2006, Kipp and Campbell 2006, Kipp 2007, Feinberg 2006, Kroski 2005). Contrarily, tagging systems are claimed to lead to semantic difficulties that may hinder the precision and recall of tagging systems (e.g. the polysemy problem, cf. Marlow 2006, Lakoff 2005, Golder and Huberman 2006). Empirical research on social tagging is still rare and mostly from a computer linguistics or librarian point-of-view (Voß 2007) which focus either on the automatic statistical analyses of large data sets, or intellectually inspect single cases of tag usage: Some scientists studied the evolution of tag vocabularies and tag distribution in specific systems (Golder and Huberman 2006, Hammond 2005). Others concentrate on tagging behaviour and tagger characteristics in collaborative systems. (Hammond 2005, Kipp and Campbell 2007, Feinberg 2006, Sen 2006). However, little research has been conducted on the functional and linguistic characteristics of tags.1 An analysis of these patterns could show differences between user wording and conventional keywording. In order to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, a classification system for existing tags is needed.
    Therefore our main research questions are as follows: - Is it possible to discover regular patterns in tag usage and to establish a stable category model? - Does a specific tagging language comparable to internet slang or chatspeak evolve? - How do social tags differ from traditional (author / expert) keywords? - To what degree are social tags taken from or findable in the full text of the tagged resource? - Do tags in a research literature context go beyond simple content description (e.g. tags indicating time or task-related information, cf. Kipp et al. 2006)?
  7. Trant, J.; Bearman, D.: Social terminology enhancement through vernacular engagement : exploring collaborative annotation to encourage interaction with museum collections (2005) 0.05 
    0.051862784 = product of:
  0.06915038 = sum of:
    0.0057926136 = weight(_text_:a in 1185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0057926136 = score(doc=1185,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 1185, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1185)
    0.042895574 = weight(_text_:et in 1185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042895574 = score(doc=1185,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20686594 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 1185, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1185)
    0.020462193 = product of:
      0.040924385 = sum of:
        0.040924385 = weight(_text_:al in 1185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040924385 = score(doc=1185,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205697 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 1185, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1185)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    From their earliest encounters with the Web, museums have seen an opportunity to move beyond uni-directional communication into an environment that engages their users and reflects a multiplicity of perspectives. Shedding the "Unassailable Voice" (Walsh 1997) in favor of many "Points of View" (Sledge 1995) has challenged traditional museum approaches to the creation and delivery of content. Novel approaches are required in order to develop and sustain user engagement (Durbin 2004). New models of exhibit creation that democratize the curatorial functions of object selection and interpretation offer one way of opening up the museum (Coldicutt and Streten 2005). Another is to use the museum as a forum and focus for community story-telling (Howard, Pratty et al. 2005). Unfortunately, museum collections remain relatively inaccessible even when 'made available' through searchable on-line databases. Museum documentation seldom satisfies the on-line access needs of the broad public, both because it is written using professional terminology and because it may not address what is important to - or remembered by - the museum visitor. For example, an exhibition now on-line at The Metropolitan Museum of Art acknowledges "Coco" Chanel only in the brief, textual introduction (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005a). All of the images of her delightful fashion designs are attributed to "Gabrielle Chanel" (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005a). Interfaces that organize collections along axes of time or place - such of that of the Timeline of Art History (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005e) - often fail to match users' world-views, despite the care that went into their structuring or their significant pedagogical utility. Critically, as professionals working with art museums we realize that when cataloguers and curators describe works of art, they usually do not include the "subject" of the image itself. Simply put, we rarely answer the question "What is it a picture of?" Unfortunately, visitors will often remember a work based on its visual characteristics, only to find that Web-based searches for any of the things they recall do not produce results.
    Type
    a
  8. Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008) 0.01 
    0.014537444 = product of:
  0.029074889 = sum of:
    0.0051810704 = weight(_text_:a in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051810704 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
    0.023893818 = product of:
      0.047787637 = sum of:
        0.047787637 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047787637 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Pages
    S.15-22
    Type
    a
  9. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.01 
    0.014180059 = product of:
  0.028360117 = sum of:
    0.0072407667 = weight(_text_:a in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072407667 = score(doc=2652,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = 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)
    0.02111935 = product of:
      0.0422387 = sum of:
        0.0422387 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0422387 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Folksonomy is the result of describing Web resources with tags created by Web users. Although it has become a popular application for the description of resources, in general terms Folksonomies are not being conveniently integrated in metadata. However, if the appropriate metadata elements are identified, then further work may be conducted to automatically assign tags to these elements (RDF properties) and use them in Semantic Web applications. This article presents research carried out to continue the project Kinds of Tags, which intends to identify elements required for metadata originating from folksonomies and to propose an application profile for DC Social Tagging. The work provides information that may be used by software applications to assign tags to metadata elements and, therefore, means for tags to be conveniently gathered by metadata interoperability tools. Despite the unquestionably high value of DC and the significance of the already existing properties in DC Terms, the pilot study show revealed a significant number of tags for which no corresponding properties yet existed. A need for new properties, such as Action, Depth, Rate, and Utility was determined. Those potential new properties will have to be validated in a later stage by the DC Social Tagging Community.
    Pages
    S.14-22
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
    Type
    a
  10. Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008) 0.01 
    0.01365917 = product of:
  0.02731834 = sum of:
    0.0064112484 = weight(_text_:a in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0064112484 = score(doc=2889,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
    0.020907091 = product of:
      0.041814182 = sum of:
        0.041814182 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041814182 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:22:44
    Type
    a
  11. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.01 
    0.012845984 = product of:
  0.025691967 = sum of:
    0.007771606 = weight(_text_:a in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007771606 = score(doc=3601,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Some members of the library community, including the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, have suggested that libraries should open up their catalogs to allow users to add descriptive tags to the bibliographic data in catalog records. The web site LibraryThing currently permits its members to add such user tags to its records for books and therefore provides a useful resource to contrast with library bibliographic records. A comparison between the LibraryThing tags for a group of books and the library-supplied subject headings for the same books shows that users and catalogers approach these descriptors very differently. Because of these differences, user tags can enhance subject access to library materials, but they cannot entirely replace controlled vocabularies such as the Library of Congress subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  12. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.01 
    0.012325386 = product of:
  0.024650771 = sum of:
    0.0067304084 = weight(_text_:a in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067304084 = score(doc=3602,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This study is an examination of the overlap between author-assigned keywords and cataloger-assigned Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for a set of electronic theses and dissertations in Ohio State University's online catalog. The project is intended to contribute to the literature on the issue of keywords versus controlled vocabularies in the use of online catalogs and databases. Findings support previous studies' conclusions that both keywords and controlled vocabularies complement one another. Further, even in the presence of bibliographic record enhancements, such as abstracts or summaries, keywords and subject headings provided a significant number of unique terms that could affect the success of keyword searches. Implications for the maintenance of controlled vocabularies such as LCSH also are discussed in light of the patterns of matches and nonmatches found between the keywords and their corresponding subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  13. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.01 
    0.012046281 = product of:
  0.024092562 = sum of:
    0.009158926 = weight(_text_:a in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009158926 = score(doc=515,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
    0.014933636 = product of:
      0.029867273 = sum of:
        0.029867273 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029867273 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    A new collaborative approach in information organization and sharing has recently arisen, known as collaborative tagging or social indexing. A key element of collaborative tagging is the concept of collective intelligence (CI), which is a shared intelligence among all participants. This research investigates the phenomenon of social tagging in the context of CI with the aim to serve as a stepping-stone towards the mining of truly valuable social tags for web resources. This study focuses on assessing and evaluating the degree of CI embedded in social tagging over time in terms of two-parameter values, number of participants, and top frequency ranking window. Five different metrics were adopted and utilized for assessing the similarity between ranking lists: overlapList, overlapRank, Footrule, Fagin's measure, and the Inverse Rank measure. The result of this study demonstrates that a substantial degree of CI is most likely to be achieved when somewhere between the first 200 and 400 people have participated in tagging, and that a target degree of CI can be projected by controlling the two factors along with the selection of a similarity metric. The study also tests some experimental conditions for detecting social tags with high CI degree. The results of this study can be applicable to the study of filtering social tags based on CI; filtered social tags may be utilized for the metadata creation of tagged resources and possibly for the retrieval of tagged resources.
    Date
    25.12.2012 15:22:37
    Type
    a
  14. Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019) 0.01 
    0.012046281 = product of:
  0.024092562 = sum of:
    0.009158926 = weight(_text_:a in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009158926 = score(doc=5492,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
    0.014933636 = product of:
      0.029867273 = sum of:
        0.029867273 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029867273 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose Online knowledge communities make great contributions to global knowledge sharing and innovation. Resource tagging approaches have been widely adopted in such communities to describe, annotate and organize knowledge resources mainly through users' participation. However, it is unclear what causes the adoption of a particular resource tagging approach. The purpose of this paper is to identify factors that drive users to use a hybrid social tagging approach. Design/methodology/approach Technology acceptance model and social cognitive theory are adopted to support an integrated model proposed in this paper. Zhihu, one of the most popular online knowledge communities in China, is taken as the survey context. A survey was conducted with a questionnaire and collected data were analyzed through structural equation model. Findings A new hybrid social resource tagging approach was refined and described. The empirical results revealed that self-efficacy, perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use exert positive effect on users' attitude. Moreover, social influence, PU and attitude impact significantly on users' intention to use a hybrid social resource tagging approach. Originality/value Theoretically, this study enriches the type of resource tagging approaches and recognizes factors influencing user adoption to use it. Regarding the practical parts, the results provide online information system providers and designers with referential strategies to improve the performance of the current tagging approaches and promote them.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Type
    a
  15. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.01 
    0.011087202 = product of:
  0.022174403 = sum of:
    0.0072407667 = weight(_text_:a in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072407667 = score(doc=2648,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
    0.014933636 = product of:
      0.029867273 = sum of:
        0.029867273 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029867273 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The growing predominance of social semantics in the form of tagging presents the metadata community with both opportunities and challenges as for leveraging this new form of information content representation and for retrieval. One key challenge is the absence of contextual information associated with these tags. This paper presents an experiment working with Flickr tags as an example of utilizing social semantics sources for enriching subject metadata. The procedure included four steps: 1) Collecting a sample of Flickr tags, 2) Calculating cooccurrences between tags through mutual information, 3) Tracing contextual information of tag pairs via Google search results, 4) Applying natural language processing and machine learning techniques to extract semantic relations between tags. The experiment helped us to build a context sentence collection from the Google search results, which was then processed by natural language processing and machine learning algorithms. This new approach achieved a reasonably good rate of accuracy in assigning semantic relations to tag pairs. This paper also explores the implications of this approach for using social semantics to enrich subject metadata.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
    Type
    a
  16. Kim, H.L.; Scerri, S.; Breslin, J.G.; Decker, S.; Kim, H.G.: ¬The state of the art in tag ontologies : a semantic model for tagging and folksonomies (2008) 0.01 
    0.011087202 = product of:
  0.022174403 = sum of:
    0.0072407667 = weight(_text_:a in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072407667 = score(doc=2650,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = 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)
    0.014933636 = product of:
      0.029867273 = sum of:
        0.029867273 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029867273 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    There is a growing interest into how we represent and share tagging data in collaborative tagging systems. Conventional tags, meaning freely created tags that are not associated with a structured ontology, are not naturally suited for collaborative processes, due to linguistic and grammatical variations, as well as human typing errors. Additionally, tags reflect personal views of the world by individual users, and are not normalised for synonymy, morphology or any other mapping. Our view is that the conventional approach provides very limited semantic value for collaboration. Moreover, in cases where there is some semantic value, automatically sharing semantics via computer manipulations is extremely problematic. This paper explores these problems by discussing approaches for collaborative tagging activities at a semantic level, and presenting conceptual models for collaborative tagging activities and folksonomies. We present criteria for the comparison of existing tag ontologies and discuss their strengths and weaknesses in relation to these criteria.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
    Type
    a
  17. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.01 
    0.011087202 = product of:
  0.022174403 = sum of:
    0.0072407667 = weight(_text_:a in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072407667 = score(doc=2891,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
    0.014933636 = product of:
      0.029867273 = sum of:
        0.029867273 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029867273 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study was to examine user tags that describe digitized archival collections in the field of humanities. A collection of 8,310 tags from a digital portal (Nineteenth-Century Electronic Scholarship, NINES) was analyzed to find out what attributes of primary historical resources users described with tags. Tags were categorized to identify which tags describe the content of the resource, the resource itself, and subjective aspects (e.g., usage or emotion). The study's findings revealed that over half were content-related; tags representing opinion, usage context, or self-reference, however, reflected only a small percentage. The study further found that terms related to genre or physical format of a resource were frequently used in describing primary archival resources. It was also learned that nontextual resources had lower numbers of content-related tags and higher numbers of document-related tags than textual resources and bibliographic materials; moreover, textual resources tended to have more user-context-related tags than other resources. These findings help explain users' tagging behavior and resource interpretation in primary resources in the humanities. Such information provided through tags helps information professionals decide to what extent indexing archival and cultural resources should be done for resource description and discovery, and understand users' terminology.
    Date
    21. 4.2016 11:23:22
    Type
    a
  18. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.01 
    0.010903083 = product of:
  0.021806166 = sum of:
    0.003885803 = weight(_text_:a in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003885803 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
    Type
    a
  19. Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011) 0.01 
    0.010903083 = product of:
  0.021806166 = sum of:
    0.003885803 = weight(_text_:a in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003885803 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    ¬Die Kraft der digitalen Unordnung: 32. Arbeits- und Fortbildungstagung der ASpB e. V., Sektion 5 im Deutschen Bibliotheksverband, 22.-25. September 2009 in der Universität Karlsruhe. Hrsg: Jadwiga Warmbrunn u.a
    Type
    a
  20. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.01 
    0.010704987 = product of:
  0.021409974 = sum of:
    0.006476338 = weight(_text_:a in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006476338 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.014933636 = product of:
      0.029867273 = sum of:
        0.029867273 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029867273 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    More and more users index everything on their own in the web 2.0. There are services for links, videos, pictures, books, encyclopaedic articles and scientific articles. All these services are library independent. But must that really be? Can't libraries help with their experience and tools to make user indexing better? On the experience of a project from German language Wikipedia together with the German person authority files (Personen Namen Datei - PND) located at German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) I would like to show what is possible. How users can and will use the authority files, if we let them. We will take a look how the project worked and what we can learn for future projects. Conclusions - Authority files can have a role in the web 2.0 - there must be an open interface/ service for retrieval - everything that is indexed on the net with authority files can be easy integrated in a federated search - O'Reilly: You have to found ways that your data get more important that more it will be used
    Content
    Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 104
  • d 36
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 127
  • el 13
  • m 6
  • b 2
  • s 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications