-
Shiri, A.: Trend analysis in social tagging : an LIS perspective (2007)
0.00
0.002379629 = product of:
0.009518516 = sum of:
0.009518516 = weight(_text_:information in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009518516 = score(doc=529,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.034944877 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 529, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=529)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- The aim of the present study was to identify and categorize social tagging trends and developments as revealed by the analysis of library and information science scholarly and professional literature.
-
Furner, J.: User tagging of library resources : toward a framework for system evaluation (2007)
0.00
0.0017847219 = product of:
0.0071388874 = sum of:
0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0071388874 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.034944877 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Content
- Vortrag anlässlich: WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 73RD IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND COUNCIL 19-23 August 2007, Durban, South Africa. - 157 - Classification and Indexing
-
Shirky, C.: Ontology is overrated : categories, links, and tags (2005)
0.00
0.0014872681 = product of:
0.0059490725 = sum of:
0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0059490725 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.034944877 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1265, 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=1265)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Today I want to talk about categorization, and I want to convince you that a lot of what we think we know about categorization is wrong. In particular, I want to convince you that many of the ways we're attempting to apply categorization to the electronic world are actually a bad fit, because we've adopted habits of mind that are left over from earlier strategies. I also want to convince you that what we're seeing when we see the Web is actually a radical break with previous categorization strategies, rather than an extension of them. The second part of the talk is more speculative, because it is often the case that old systems get broken before people know what's going to take their place. (Anyone watching the music industry can see this at work today.) That's what I think is happening with categorization. What I think is coming instead are much more organic ways of organizing information than our current categorization schemes allow, based on two units -- the link, which can point to anything, and the tag, which is a way of attaching labels to links. The strategy of tagging -- free-form labeling, without regard to categorical constraints -- seems like a recipe for disaster, but as the Web has shown us, you can extract a surprising amount of value from big messy data sets.
-
Heckner, M.; Mühlbacher, S.; Wolff, C.: Tagging tagging : a classification model for user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems (2007)
0.00
0.0011898145 = product of:
0.004759258 = sum of:
0.004759258 = weight(_text_:information in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004759258 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.034944877 = queryNorm
0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- 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)?
-
Hammond, T.; Hannay, T.; Lund, B.; Scott, J.: Social bookmarking tools (I) : a general review (2005)
0.00
0.0010410878 = product of:
0.004164351 = sum of:
0.004164351 = weight(_text_:information in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004164351 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.034944877 = queryNorm
0.06788416 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- A number of such utilities are presented here, together with an emergent new class of tools that caters more to the academic communities and that stores not only user-supplied tags, but also structured citation metadata terms wherever it is possible to glean this information from service providers. This provision of rich, structured metadata means that the user is provided with an accurate third-party identification of a document, which could be used to retrieve that document, but is also free to search on user-supplied terms so that documents of interest (or rather, references to documents) can be made discoverable and aggregated with other similar descriptions either recorded by the user or by other users. Matt Biddulph in an XML.com article last year, in which he reviews one of the better known social bookmarking tools, del.icio.us, declares that the "del.icio.us-space has three major axes: users, tags, and URLs". We fully support that assessment but choose to present this deconstruction in a reverse order. This paper thus first recaps a brief history of bookmarks, then discusses the current interest in tagging, moves on to look at certain social issues, and finally considers some of the feature sets offered by the new bookmarking tools. A general review of a number of common social bookmarking tools is presented in the annex. A companion paper describes a case study in more detail: the tool that Nature Publishing Group has made available to the scientific community as an experimental entrée into this field - Connotea; our reasons for endeavouring to provide such a utility; and experiences gained and lessons learned.
