Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

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

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.

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

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

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

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".