-
Trant, J.; Bearman, D.: Social terminology enhancement through vernacular engagement : exploring collaborative annotation to encourage interaction with museum collections (2005)
0.01
0.013327132 = product of:
0.039981395 = sum of:
0.039981395 = product of:
0.07996279 = sum of:
0.07996279 = weight(_text_:2005 in 1185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07996279 = score(doc=1185,freq=9.0), product of:
0.19702037 = queryWeight, product of:
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = queryNorm
0.4058605 = fieldWeight in 1185, product of:
3.0 = tf(freq=9.0), with freq of:
9.0 = termFreq=9.0
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1185)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
- Source
- D-Lib magazine. 11(2005) no.9, x S
- Year
- 2005
-
Heckner, M.; Mühlbacher, S.; Wolff, C.: Tagging tagging : a classification model for user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems (2007)
0.01
0.01256494 = product of:
0.03769482 = sum of:
0.03769482 = product of:
0.07538964 = sum of:
0.07538964 = weight(_text_:2005 in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07538964 = score(doc=533,freq=8.0), product of:
0.19702037 = queryWeight, product of:
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = queryNorm
0.38264894 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
-
Regulski, K.: Aufwand und Nutzen beim Einsatz von Social-Bookmarking-Services als Nachweisinstrument für wissenschaftliche Forschungsartikel am Beispiel von BibSonomy (2007)
0.01
0.01256494 = product of:
0.03769482 = sum of:
0.03769482 = product of:
0.07538964 = sum of:
0.07538964 = weight(_text_:2005 in 4595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07538964 = score(doc=4595,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19702037 = queryWeight, product of:
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = queryNorm
0.38264894 = fieldWeight in 4595, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4595)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Autoren wissenschaftlicher Artikel stehen unterschiedliche Wege bei der Recherche nach Hintergrundmaterial zu ihren Projekten zur Verfügung. Dass Social-Bookmarking-Dienste, die als Teil des Web 2.0 (O'Reilly, 2005) und der Bibliothek 2.0 (Danowski, 2006) genannt werden, eine sinnvolle Ergänzung zu den herkömmlichen Nachweisdatenbanken sein können, soll der vorliegende Artikel zeigen.
-
Hammond, T.; Hannay, T.; Lund, B.; Flack, M.: Social bookmarking tools (II) : a case study - Connotea (2005)
0.01
0.012416821 = product of:
0.037250463 = sum of:
0.037250463 = product of:
0.074500926 = sum of:
0.074500926 = weight(_text_:2005 in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.074500926 = score(doc=1189,freq=5.0), product of:
0.19702037 = queryWeight, product of:
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = queryNorm
0.37813818 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
5.0 = termFreq=5.0
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- D-Lib magazine. 11(2005) no.4, x S
- Year
- 2005
-
Shirky, C.: Ontology is overrated : categories, links, and tags (2005)
0.01
0.012416821 = product of:
0.037250463 = sum of:
0.037250463 = product of:
0.074500926 = sum of:
0.074500926 = weight(_text_:2005 in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.074500926 = score(doc=1265,freq=5.0), product of:
0.19702037 = queryWeight, product of:
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = queryNorm
0.37813818 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
5.0 = termFreq=5.0
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Footnote
- This piece is based on two talks I gave in the spring of 2005 -- one at the O'Reilly ETech conference in March, entitled "Ontology Is Overrated", and one at the IMCExpo in April entitled "Folksonomies & Tags: The rise of user-developed classification." The written version is a heavily edited concatenation of those two talks.
- Year
- 2005
-
Hidderley, R.; Rafferty, P.: Flickr and democratic indexing : disciplining desire lines (2006)
0.01
0.010994322 = product of:
0.032982964 = sum of:
0.032982964 = product of:
0.06596593 = sum of:
0.06596593 = weight(_text_:2005 in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06596593 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19702037 = queryWeight, product of:
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = queryNorm
0.33481783 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- In this paper, we consider three models of subject indexing, and compare and contrast two indexing approaches, the theoretically based democratic indexing project, and Flickr, a working system for describing photographs. We argue that, despite Shirky's (2005) claim of philosophical paradigm shifting for social tagging, there is a residing doubt amongst information professionals that self-organising systems can work without there being some element of control and some form of 'representative authority'.
-
Peters, I.: Folksonomies & Social Tagging (2023)
0.01
0.010994322 = product of:
0.032982964 = sum of:
0.032982964 = product of:
0.06596593 = sum of:
0.06596593 = weight(_text_:2005 in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06596593 = score(doc=796,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19702037 = queryWeight, product of:
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = queryNorm
0.33481783 = fieldWeight in 796, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=796)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Die Erforschung und der Einsatz von Folksonomies und Social Tagging als nutzerzentrierte Formen der Inhaltserschließung und Wissensrepräsentation haben in den 10 Jahren ab ca. 2005 ihren Höhenpunkt erfahren. Motiviert wurde dies durch die Entwicklung und Verbreitung des Social Web und der wachsenden Nutzung von Social-Media-Plattformen (s. Kapitel E 8 Social Media und Social Web). Beides führte zu einem rasanten Anstieg der im oder über das World Wide Web auffindbaren Menge an potenzieller Information und generierte eine große Nachfrage nach skalierbaren Methoden der Inhaltserschließung.
-
Hammond, T.; Hannay, T.; Lund, B.; Scott, J.: Social bookmarking tools (I) : a general review (2005)
0.01
0.010284246 = product of:
0.030852737 = sum of:
0.030852737 = product of:
0.061705474 = sum of:
0.061705474 = weight(_text_:2005 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061705474 = score(doc=1188,freq=7.0), product of:
0.19702037 = queryWeight, product of:
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = queryNorm
0.31319338 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
2.6457512 = tf(freq=7.0), with freq of:
7.0 = termFreq=7.0
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Because, to paraphrase a pop music lyric from a certain rock and roll band of yesterday, "the Web is old, the Web is new, the Web is all, the Web is you", it seems like we might have to face up to some of these stark realities. With the introduction of new social software applications such as blogs, wikis, newsfeeds, social networks, and bookmarking tools (the subject of this paper), the claim that Shelley Powers makes in a Burningbird blog entry seems apposite: "This is the user's web now, which means it's my web and I can make the rules." Reinvention is revolution - it brings us always back to beginnings. We are here going to remind you of hyperlinks in all their glory, sell you on the idea of bookmarking hyperlinks, point you at other folks who are doing the same, and tell you why this is a good thing. Just as long as those hyperlinks (or let's call them plain old links) are managed, tagged, commented upon, and published onto the Web, they represent a user's own personal library placed on public record, which - when aggregated with other personal libraries - allows for rich, social networking opportunities. Why spill any ink (digital or not) in rewriting what someone else has already written about instead of just pointing at the original story and adding the merest of titles, descriptions and tags for future reference? More importantly, why not make these personal 'link playlists' available to oneself and to others from whatever browser or computer one happens to be using at the time? This paper reviews some current initiatives, as of early 2005, in providing public link management applications on the Web - utilities that are often referred to under the general moniker of 'social bookmarking tools'. There are a couple of things going on here: 1) server-side software aimed specifically at managing links with, crucially, a strong, social networking flavour, and 2) an unabashedly open and unstructured approach to tagging, or user classification, of those links.
- Source
- D-Lib magazine. 11(2005) no.4, x S
- Year
- 2005
-
Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008)
0.01
0.00822128 = product of:
0.024663838 = sum of:
0.024663838 = product of:
0.049327675 = sum of:
0.049327675 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049327675 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15936781 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Pages
- S.15-22
-
Munk, T.B.; Moerk, K.: Folksonomies, tagging communities, and tagging strategies : an empirical study (2007)
0.01
0.007853087 = product of:
0.023559261 = sum of:
0.023559261 = product of:
0.047118522 = sum of:
0.047118522 = weight(_text_:2005 in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047118522 = score(doc=1091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19702037 = queryWeight, product of:
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = queryNorm
0.23915559 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
-
Xu, C.; Ma, B.; Chen, X.; Ma, F.: Social tagging in the scholarly world (2013)
0.01
0.007853087 = product of:
0.023559261 = sum of:
0.023559261 = product of:
0.047118522 = sum of:
0.047118522 = weight(_text_:2005 in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047118522 = score(doc=1091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19702037 = queryWeight, product of:
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = queryNorm
0.23915559 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.329179 = idf(docFreq=1583, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The number of research studies on social tagging has increased rapidly in the past years, but few of them highlight the characteristics and research trends in social tagging. A set of 862 academic documents relating to social tagging and published from 2005 to 2011 was thus examined using bibliometric analysis as well as the social network analysis technique. The results show that social tagging, as a research area, develops rapidly and attracts an increasing number of new entrants. There are no key authors, publication sources, or research groups that dominate the research domain of social tagging. Research on social tagging appears to focus mainly on the following three aspects: (a) components and functions of social tagging (e.g., tags, tagging objects, and tagging network), (b) taggers' behaviors and interface design, and (c) tags' organization and usage in social tagging. The trend suggest that more researchers turn to the latter two integrated with human computer interface and information retrieval, although the first aspect is the fundamental one in social tagging. Also, more studies relating to social tagging pay attention to multimedia tagging objects and not only text tagging. Previous research on social tagging was limited to a few subject domains such as information science and computer science. As an interdisciplinary research area, social tagging is anticipated to attract more researchers from different disciplines. More practical applications, especially in high-tech companies, is an encouraging research trend in social tagging.
-
Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008)
0.01
0.007266653 = product of:
0.021799957 = sum of:
0.021799957 = product of:
0.043599915 = sum of:
0.043599915 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043599915 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15936781 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
-
Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008)
0.01
0.007193619 = product of:
0.021580856 = sum of:
0.021580856 = product of:
0.043161713 = sum of:
0.043161713 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043161713 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15936781 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 21. 6.2009 12:22:44
-
Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009)
0.01
0.006165959 = product of:
0.018497877 = sum of:
0.018497877 = product of:
0.036995754 = sum of:
0.036995754 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036995754 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15936781 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 1. 8.2010 12:35:22
-
Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009)
0.01
0.006165959 = product of:
0.018497877 = sum of:
0.018497877 = product of:
0.036995754 = sum of:
0.036995754 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036995754 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15936781 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009)
0.01
0.006165959 = product of:
0.018497877 = sum of:
0.018497877 = product of:
0.036995754 = sum of:
0.036995754 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036995754 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15936781 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011)
0.01
0.006165959 = product of:
0.018497877 = sum of:
0.018497877 = product of:
0.036995754 = sum of:
0.036995754 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036995754 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15936781 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
-
Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007)
0.01
0.0051382994 = product of:
0.015414898 = sum of:
0.015414898 = product of:
0.030829797 = sum of:
0.030829797 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030829797 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15936781 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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".
-
Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008)
0.01
0.0051382994 = product of:
0.015414898 = sum of:
0.015414898 = product of:
0.030829797 = sum of:
0.030829797 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030829797 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15936781 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
-
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
0.0051382994 = product of:
0.015414898 = sum of:
0.015414898 = product of:
0.030829797 = sum of:
0.030829797 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030829797 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15936781 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04550987 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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
