Search (54 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Folksonomies"
  1. Peters, I.: Benutzerzentrierte Erschließungsverfahren (2013) 0.03
    0.025838278 = product of:
      0.07105526 = sum of:
        0.0039050733 = weight(_text_:a in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0039050733 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = 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)
        0.03218541 = weight(_text_:r in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03218541 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.36573532 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
        0.0034720355 = weight(_text_:s in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0034720355 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.120123915 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
        0.031492744 = weight(_text_:u in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031492744 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = 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)
      0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    
    Pages
    S.229-237
    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
  2. Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval (2008) 0.01
    0.010811418 = product of:
      0.0297314 = sum of:
        0.0054389704 = product of:
          0.010877941 = sum of:
            0.010877941 = weight(_text_:h in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.010877941 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.026584605 = queryNorm
                0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.0033135647 = weight(_text_:a in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033135647 = score(doc=1597,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = 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)
        0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0020832212 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
        0.018895645 = weight(_text_:u in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018895645 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = 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)
      0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    
    Abstract
    Die populären Web 2.0-Dienste werden von Prosumern - Produzenten und gleichsam Konsumenten - nicht nur dazu genutzt, Inhalte zu produzieren, sondern auch, um sie inhaltlich zu erschließen. Folksonomies erlauben es dem Nutzer, Dokumente mit eigenen Schlagworten, sog. Tags, zu beschreiben, ohne dabei auf gewisse Regeln oder Vorgaben achten zu müssen. Neben einigen Vorteilen zeigen Folksonomies aber auch zahlreiche Schwächen (u. a. einen Mangel an Präzision). Um diesen Nachteilen größtenteils entgegenzuwirken, schlagen wir eine Interpretation der Tags als natürlichsprachige Wörter vor. Dadurch ist es uns möglich, Methoden des Natural Language Processing (NLP) auf die Tags anzuwenden und so linguistische Probleme der Tags zu beseitigen. Darüber hinaus diskutieren wir Ansätze und weitere Vorschläge (Tagverteilungen, Kollaboration und akteurspezifische Aspekte) hinsichtlich eines Relevance Rankings von getaggten Dokumenten. Neben Vorschlägen auf ähnliche Dokumente ("more like this!") erlauben Folksonomies auch Hinweise auf verwandte Nutzer und damit auf Communities ("more like me!").
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 59(2008) H.2, S.77-90
    Type
    a
  3. Wesch, M.: Information R/evolution (2006) 0.01
    0.010328129 = product of:
      0.037869804 = sum of:
        0.0027335514 = weight(_text_:a in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0027335514 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = 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)
        0.022529786 = weight(_text_:r in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022529786 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.25601473 = fieldWeight in 1267, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1267)
        0.012606464 = product of:
          0.025212929 = sum of:
            0.025212929 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.025212929 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.026584605 = 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)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    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
  4. Güntner, G.; Sint, R.; Westenthaler, R.: ¬Ein Ansatz zur Unterstützung traditioneller Klassifikation durch Social Tagging (2008) 0.01
    0.008655407 = product of:
      0.03173649 = sum of:
        0.0023430442 = weight(_text_:a in 2897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0023430442 = score(doc=2897,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 2897, 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=2897)
        0.027310224 = weight(_text_:r in 2897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027310224 = score(doc=2897,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.3103367 = fieldWeight in 2897, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2897)
        0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 2897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0020832212 = score(doc=2897,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2897, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2897)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Pages
    S.187-199
    Type
    a
  5. Watters, C.; Nizam, N.: Knowledge organization on the Web : the emergent role of social classification (2012) 0.01
    0.008501223 = product of:
      0.03117115 = sum of:
        0.006695806 = weight(_text_:a in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006695806 = score(doc=828,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = 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)
        0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0024304248 = score(doc=828,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
        0.02204492 = weight(_text_:u in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02204492 = score(doc=828,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = 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)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    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.
    Pages
    S.69-74
    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
  6. Spiteri, L.: ¬The structure and form of folksonomy tags : the road to the public library catalogue (2007) 0.01
    0.008480695 = product of:
      0.031095881 = sum of:
        0.0031240587 = weight(_text_:a in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0031240587 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = 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)
        0.0027776284 = weight(_text_:s in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0027776284 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 1141, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1141)
        0.025194194 = weight(_text_:u in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025194194 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = 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)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Pages
    S.459-467
    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
  7. Peters, I.: Folksonomies, social tagging and information retrieval (2011) 0.01
    0.0072867624 = product of:
      0.026718128 = sum of:
        0.0057392623 = weight(_text_:a in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0057392623 = score(doc=4907,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = 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)
        0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0020832212 = score(doc=4907,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
        0.018895645 = weight(_text_:u in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018895645 = score(doc=4907,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = 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)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    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).
    Pages
    S.85-116
    Source
    Innovations in information retrieval: perspectives for theory and practice. Eds.: A. Foster, u. P. Rafferty
    Type
    a
  8. Munk, T.B.; Mork, K.: Folksonomy, the power law & the significance of the least effort (2007) 0.01
    0.006986414 = product of:
      0.02561685 = sum of:
        0.0051659266 = weight(_text_:a in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0051659266 = score(doc=663,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
        0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0017360178 = score(doc=663,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
        0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018714907 = score(doc=663,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    The essence of folksonomies is user-created descriptive metadata as opposed to the traditional sender-determined descriptive metadata in taxonomies and faceted classification. We briefly introduce the beginning and principles of folksonomy and discuss the categorizing concept of folksonomies on the basis of the computer program del.icio.us. The selection of the metadata tagged is not accidental, rather tagging follows a pattern that proves to be the pattern for the classic power law, which, in many complex systems is seen to unfold as an imitation-dynamic that creates an asymmetry, where a few descriptive metadata are often reproduced and the majority seldom reproduced. In del.icio.us, it is the very broad and basic subject headings that are often reproduced and achieve power in the system - which in cognitive psychology is called cognitive basic categories - while the small, more specific subject headings are seldom reproduced. The law of power's underlying imitation-dynamic in del.icio.us is explained from the perspective of different theoretical paradigms, i.e. network, economy and cognition. The theorectical and speculative conclusion is that the law of power and asymmetry is biased by a cognitive economizing through a simplification principle in the users construction of descriptive metadata. Free tagging in folksonomies is comparable to empirical experiments in free categorization. Users often choose broad basic categories, because that requires the least cognitive effort. The consequences are that folksonomy is not necessarily a better, more realistic and cheaper method of creating metadata than that which can be generated through taxonomies, faceted classification or search algorithms. Folksonomy as a self-organizing system likely cannot create better and cheaper descriptive metadata.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 34(2007) no.1, S.16-33
    Type
    a
  9. Pera, M.S.; Lund, W.; Ng, Y.-K.: ¬A sophisticated library search strategy using folksonomies and similarity matching (2009) 0.01
    0.006986414 = product of:
      0.02561685 = sum of:
        0.0051659266 = weight(_text_:a in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0051659266 = score(doc=2939,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
        0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0017360178 = score(doc=2939,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
        0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018714907 = score(doc=2939,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    Libraries, private and public, offer valuable resources to library patrons. As of today, the only way to locate information archived exclusively in libraries is through their catalogs. Library patrons, however, often find it difficult to formulate a proper query, which requires using specific keywords assigned to different fields of desired library catalog records, to obtain relevant results. These improperly formulated queries often yield irrelevant results or no results at all. This negative experience in dealing with existing library systems turns library patrons away from directly querying library catalogs; instead, they rely on Web search engines to perform their searches first, and upon obtaining the initial information (e.g., titles, subject headings, or authors) on the desired library materials, they query library catalogs. This searching strategy is an evidence of failure of today's library systems. In solving this problem, we propose an enhanced library system, which allows partial, similarity matching of (a) tags defined by ordinary users at a folksonomy site that describe the content of books and (b) unrestricted keywords specified by an ordinary library patron in a query to search for relevant library catalog records. The proposed library system allows patrons posting a query Q using commonly used words and ranks the retrieved results according to their degrees of resemblance with Q while maintaining the query processing time comparable with that achieved by current library search engines.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.7, S.1392-1406
    Type
    a
  10. Munk, T.B.; Moerk, K.: Folksonomies, tagging communities, and tagging strategies : an empirical study (2007) 0.01
    0.006881903 = product of:
      0.025233643 = sum of:
        0.004782719 = weight(_text_:a in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004782719 = score(doc=1091,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 1091, 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=1091)
        0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0017360178 = score(doc=1091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
        0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018714907 = score(doc=1091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    The subject of this article is folksonomies on the Internet. One of the largest folksonomies on the Internet in terms of number of users and tagged websites is the computer program del.icio.us, where more than 100,000 people have tagged the websites that they and others find using their own keywords. How this is done in practice and the patterns to be found are the focus of this article. The empirical basis is the collection of 76,601 different keywords with a total frequency of 178,215 from 500 randomly chosen taggers on del.icio.us at the end of 2005. The keywords collected were then analyzed quantitatively statistically by uncovering their frequency and percentage distribution and through a statistical correspondence analysis in order to uncover possible patterns in the users' tags. Subsequently, a qualitative textual analysis of the tags was made in order to find out by analysis which tagging strategies are represented in the data material. This led to four conclusions. 1) the distribution of keywords follows classic power law; 2) distinct tagging communities are identifiable; 3) the most frequently used tags are situated on a general-specific axis; and 4) nine distinct tagging strategies are observed. These four conclusions are put into perspective collectively in respect of a number of more general and theoretical considerations concerning folksonomies and the classification systems of the future.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 34(2007) no.3, S.115-127
    Type
    a
  11. Chopin, K.: Finding communities : alternative viewpoints through weblogs and tagging (2008) 0.01
    0.006881903 = product of:
      0.025233643 = sum of:
        0.004782719 = weight(_text_:a in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004782719 = score(doc=2341,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2341, 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=2341)
        0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0017360178 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
        0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018714907 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper aims to discuss and test the claim that user-based tagging allows for access to a wider variety of viewpoints than is found using other forms of online searching. Design/methodology/approach - A general overview of the nature of weblogs and user-based tagging is given, along with other relevant concepts. A case is then analyzed where viewpoints towards a specific issue are searched for using both tag searching (Technorati) and general search engine searching (Google and Google Blog Search). Findings - The claim to greater accessibility through user-based tagging is not overtly supported with these experiments. Further results for both general and tag-specific searching goes against some common assumptions about the types of content found on weblogs as opposed to more general web sites. Research limitations/implications - User-based tagging is still not widespread enough to give conclusive data for analysis. As this changes, further research in this area, using a variety of search subjects, is warranted. Originality/value - Although proponents of user-based tagging attribute many qualities to the practice, these qualities have not been properly documented or demonstrated. This paper partially rectifies this gap by testing one of the claims made, that of accessibility to alternate views, thus adding to the discussion on tagging for both researchers and other interested parties.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.4, S.552-575
    Type
    a
  12. Johansson, S.; Golub, K.: LibraryThing for libraries : how tag moderation and size limitations affect tag clouds (2019) 0.01
    0.0068386584 = product of:
      0.02507508 = sum of:
        0.0039050733 = weight(_text_:a in 5398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0039050733 = score(doc=5398,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 5398, 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=5398)
        0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 5398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0024550997 = score(doc=5398,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 5398, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5398)
        0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 5398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018714907 = score(doc=5398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 5398, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5398)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    The aim of this study is to analyse differences between tags on LibraryThing's web page and tag clouds in their "Library-Thing for Libraries" service, and assess if, and how, the Library-Thing tag moderation and limitations to the size of the tag cloud in the library catalogue affect the description of the information resource. An e-mail survey was conducted with personnel at LibraryThing, and the results were compared against tags for twenty different fiction books, collected from two different library catalogues with disparate tag cloud sizes, and Library-Thing's web page. The data were analysed using a modified version of Golder and Huberman's tag categories (2006). The results show that while LibraryThing claims to only remove the inherently personal tags, several other types of tags are found to have been discarded as well. Occasionally a certain type of tag is in-cluded in one book, and excluded in another. The comparison between the two tag cloud sizes suggests that the larger tag clouds provide a more pronounced picture regarding the contents of the book but at the cost of an increase in the number of tags with synonymous or redundant information.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 46(2019) no.4, S.245-259
    Type
    a
  13. Kim, H.H.: Toward video semantic search based on a structured folksonomy (2011) 0.01
    0.0058329445 = product of:
      0.021387463 = sum of:
        0.0039050733 = weight(_text_:a in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0039050733 = score(doc=4350,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = 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)
        0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0017360178 = score(doc=4350,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4350, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4350)
        0.015746372 = weight(_text_:u in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015746372 = score(doc=4350,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = 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)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.3, S.478-492
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
    Type
    a
  14. Yi, K.; Chan, L.M.: Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress subject headings : an exploratory study (2009) 0.01
    0.005809176 = product of:
      0.02130031 = sum of:
        0.004939571 = weight(_text_:a in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004939571 = score(doc=3616,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 3616, 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=3616)
        0.0013888142 = weight(_text_:s in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0013888142 = score(doc=3616,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
        0.014971925 = weight(_text_:k in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014971925 = score(doc=3616,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.15776339 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the linking of a folksonomy (user vocabulary) and LCSH (controlled vocabulary) on the basis of word matching, for the potential use of LCSH in bringing order to folksonomies. Design/methodology/approach - A selected sample of a folksonomy from a popular collaborative tagging system, Delicious, was word-matched with LCSH. LCSH was transformed into a tree structure called an LCSH tree for the matching. A close examination was conducted on the characteristics of folksonomies, the overlap of folksonomies with LCSH, and the distribution of folksonomies over the LCSH tree. Findings - The experimental results showed that the total proportion of tags being matched with LC subject headings constituted approximately two-thirds of all tags involved, with an additional 10 percent of the remaining tags having potential matches. A number of barriers for the linking as well as two areas in need of improving the matching are identified and described. Three important tag distribution patterns over the LCSH tree were identified and supported: skewedness, multifacet, and Zipfian-pattern. Research limitations/implications - The results of the study can be adopted for the development of innovative methods of mapping between folksonomy and LCSH, which directly contributes to effective access and retrieval of tagged web resources and to the integration of multiple information repositories based on the two vocabularies. Practical implications - The linking of controlled vocabularies can be applicable to enhance information retrieval capability within collaborative tagging systems as well as across various tagging system information depositories and bibliographic databases. Originality/value - This is among frontier works that examines the potential of linking a folksonomy, extracted from a collaborative tagging system, to an authority-maintained subject heading system. It provides exploratory data to support further advanced mapping methods for linking the two vocabularies.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 65(2009) no.6, S.872-900
    Type
    a
  15. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.01
    0.005137221 = product of:
      0.018836476 = sum of:
        0.0043660053 = weight(_text_:a in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0043660053 = score(doc=2652,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = 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)
        0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0017360178 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
        0.012734452 = product of:
          0.025468905 = sum of:
            0.025468905 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.025468905 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.026584605 = 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)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    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
  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) 0.00
    0.0044665895 = product of:
      0.016377494 = sum of:
        0.0043660053 = weight(_text_:a in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0043660053 = score(doc=2650,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = 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)
        0.003006871 = weight(_text_:s in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003006871 = score(doc=2650,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.10403037 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
        0.009004618 = product of:
          0.018009236 = sum of:
            0.018009236 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.018009236 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.026584605 = 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)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    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.
    Pages
    S.128-137
    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. Morrison, P.J.: Tagging and searching : search retrieval effectiveness of folksonomies on the World Wide Web (2008) 0.00
    0.0044188164 = product of:
      0.016202327 = sum of:
        0.0033135647 = weight(_text_:a in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033135647 = score(doc=2109,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = 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)
        0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0020832212 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
        0.010805541 = product of:
          0.021611081 = sum of:
            0.021611081 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.021611081 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.026584605 = 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)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    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
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.4, S.1562-1579
    Type
    a
  18. Park, H.: ¬A conceptual framework to study folksonomic interaction (2011) 0.00
    0.0040307464 = product of:
      0.014779404 = sum of:
        0.004532476 = product of:
          0.009064952 = sum of:
            0.009064952 = weight(_text_:h in 4852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009064952 = score(doc=4852,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.026584605 = queryNorm
                0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 4852, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4852)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.00851091 = weight(_text_:a in 4852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00851091 = score(doc=4852,freq=38.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.2776507 = fieldWeight in 4852, product of:
              6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
                38.0 = termFreq=38.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4852)
        0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 4852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0017360178 = score(doc=4852,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4852, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4852)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    This paper proposes a conceptual framework to recast a folksonomy as a Web classification and to use this to explore the ways in which people work with it in assessing, sharing, and navigating Web resources. The author uses information scent and foraging theory as a context to discuss how folksonomy is constructed through interactions among users, a folksonomic system, and a given domain that consists of a group of users who share the same interest or goals. The discussion centers on two dimensions of folksonomies: (1) folksonomy as a Web classification which puts like information together in a Web context; and (2) folksonomy as information scent which helps users to find related resources and users, and obtain desired information. This paper aims to integrate these two dimensions with a conceptual framework that addresses the structure of a folksonomy shaped by users' interactions. A proposed framework consists of three components of users' interactions with a folksonomy: (a) tagging - cognitive categorization of Web accessible resources by an individual user; (b) navigation - exploration and discovery of Web accessible resources in the folksonomic system; and (c) knowledge sharing - representation and communication of knowledge within a domain. This understanding will help us motivate possible future directions of research in folksonomy. This initial framework will frame a number of research questions and help lay the groundwork for future empirical research which focuses on qualitative analysis of a folksonomy and users' tagging behaviors.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 38(2011) no.6, S.515-529
    Type
    a
  19. Solskinnsbakk, G.; Gulla, J.A.; Haderlein, V.; Myrseth, P.; Cerrato, O.: Quality of hierarchies in ontologies and folksonomies (2012) 0.00
    0.0039164405 = product of:
      0.014360281 = sum of:
        0.0033818933 = weight(_text_:a in 1034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033818933 = score(doc=1034,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 1034, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1034)
        0.00924237 = product of:
          0.03696948 = sum of:
            0.03696948 = weight(_text_:o in 1034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03696948 = score(doc=1034,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13338262 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.026584605 = queryNorm
                0.27716863 = fieldWeight in 1034, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.017288 = idf(docFreq=795, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1034)
          0.25 = coord(1/4)
        0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 1034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0017360178 = score(doc=1034,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1034, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1034)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Abstract
    Ontologies have been a hot research topic for the recent decade and have been used for many applications such as information integration, semantic search, knowledge management, etc. Manual engineering of ontologies is a costly process and automatic ontology engineering lacks in precision. Folksonomies have recently emerged as another hot research topic and several research efforts have been made to extract lightweight ontologies automatically from folksonomy data. Due to the high cost of manual ontology engineering and the lack of precision in automatic ontology engineering it is important that we are able to evaluate the structure of the ontology. Detection of problems with the suggested ontology at an early stage can, especially for manually engineered ontologies, be cost saving. In this paper we present an approach to evaluate the quality of hierarchical relations in ontologies and folksonomy based structures. The approach is based on constructing shallow semantic representations of the ontology concepts and folksonomy tags. We specify four hypotheses regarding the semantic representations and different quality aspects of the hierarchical relations and perform an evaluation on two different data sets. The results of the evaluation confirm our hypotheses.
    Source
    Data and knowledge engineering. 74(2012) April, S.13-25
    Type
    a
  20. Peters, I.: Folksonomies : nutzergenerierte Schlagwörter als Indexierungswerkzeug für die Massen (2011) 0.00
    0.0031389387 = product of:
      0.011509442 = sum of:
        0.006345466 = product of:
          0.012690932 = sum of:
            0.012690932 = weight(_text_:h in 4909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.012690932 = score(doc=4909,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.026584605 = queryNorm
                0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 4909, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4909)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.0027335514 = weight(_text_:a in 4909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0027335514 = score(doc=4909,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 4909, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4909)
        0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 4909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0024304248 = score(doc=4909,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 4909, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4909)
      0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    
    Source
    Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 64(2011) H.3/4, S.444-459
    Type
    a

Languages

  • e 40
  • d 12
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 45
  • el 8
  • x 2
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Classifications