Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Folksonomies"
  • × theme_ss:"Metadaten"
  1. Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Power tags in information retrieval (2010) 0.00
    0.0029745363 = product of:
      0.011898145 = sum of:
        0.011898145 = weight(_text_:information in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011898145 = score(doc=865,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034944877 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - Many Web 2.0 services (including Library 2.0 catalogs) make use of folksonomies. The purpose of this paper is to cut off all tags in the long tail of a document-specific tag distribution. The remaining tags at the beginning of a tag distribution are considered power tags and form a new, additional search option in information retrieval systems. Design/methodology/approach - In a theoretical approach the paper discusses document-specific tag distributions (power law and inverse-logistic shape), the development of such distributions (Yule-Simon process and shuffling theory) and introduces search tags (besides the well-known index tags) as a possibility for generating tag distributions. Findings - Search tags are compatible with broad and narrow folksonomies and with all knowledge organization systems (e.g. classification systems and thesauri), while index tags are only applicable in broad folksonomies. Based on these findings, the paper presents a sketch of an algorithm for mining and processing power tags in information retrieval systems. Research limitations/implications - This conceptual approach is in need of empirical evaluation in a concrete retrieval system. Practical implications - Power tags are a new search option for retrieval systems to limit the amount of hits. Originality/value - The paper introduces power tags as a means for enhancing the precision of search results in information retrieval systems that apply folksonomies, e.g. catalogs in Library 2.0environments.
  2. Johansson, S.; Golub, K.: LibraryThing for libraries : how tag moderation and size limitations affect tag clouds (2019) 0.00
    0.0021033147 = product of:
      0.008413259 = sum of:
        0.008413259 = weight(_text_:information in 5398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008413259 = score(doc=5398,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034944877 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5398, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5398)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    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.
  3. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.00
    0.0014872681 = product of:
      0.0059490725 = sum of:
        0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0059490725 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034944877 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    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.