Search (47 results, page 1 of 3)

0.0468812 = product of:
  0.12501653 = sum of:
    0.033409793 = weight(_text_:libraries in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033409793 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25664487 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
    0.049294014 = weight(_text_:studies in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049294014 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3117402 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Social tagging, hashtags, and geotags are used across a variety of platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, WordPress, Instagram) in different countries and cultures. This book, representing researchers and practitioners across different information professions, explores how social tags can link content across a variety of environments. Most studies of social tagging have tended to focus on applications like library catalogs, blogs, and social bookmarking sites. This book, in setting out a theoretical background and the use of a series of case studies, explores the role of hashtags as a form of linked data?without the complex implementation of RDF and other Semantic Web technologies.

LCSH

Libraries and museums / Electronic information resources

Subject

Libraries and museums / Electronic information resources

0.042074133 = product of:
  0.16829653 = sum of:
    0.0837749 = weight(_text_:case in 4561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0837749 = score(doc=4561,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.48085782 = fieldWeight in 4561, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4561)
    0.08452163 = weight(_text_:studies in 4561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08452163 = score(doc=4561,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.53452307 = fieldWeight in 4561, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4561)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This paper examines collections of citations that individual users contribute to social tagging systems such as Delicious and LibraryThing. I characterize these personal collections, furnished with various forms of metadata and arranged for Web display, as a means of communication, where a particular sensibility molds guiding principles for resource selection, description, and categorization. Using several analytic frameworks from museum studies, I present three brief case studies that interrogate both the substance and the means of expression achieved in such collections, which I term "expressive bibliographies." In considering these case studies, I explore how an explicit rhetorical perspective might inform purposeful design of expressive bibliography.

0.03273997 = product of:
  0.13095988 = sum of:
    0.071807064 = weight(_text_:case in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071807064 = score(doc=2271,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 2271, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2271)
    0.05915282 = weight(_text_:studies in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05915282 = score(doc=2271,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.37408823 = fieldWeight in 2271, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2271)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Content

In investigating the use of social tagging for knowledge organization and sharing, this paper reports on two case studies. Each study examines how two disparate communities of practices utilize social tagging to disseminate information to other community members in the online environment. Through the use of these tags, community members may retrieve and view relevant Web sites and online videos. The first study looks at tagging within the Code4Lib community of practice. The second study examines the use of tagging on video sharing sites used by a community of French teenagers. Uses of social tagging to share information within these communities are analyzed and discussed, and recommendations for future study are provided.

0.022901682 = product of:
  0.09160673 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 3452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=3452,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 3452, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3452)
    0.049294014 = weight(_text_:studies in 3452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049294014 = score(doc=3452,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3117402 = fieldWeight in 3452, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3452)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

With the emergence of Web 2.0, sharing personal content, communicating ideas, and interacting with other online users in Web 2.0 communities have become daily routines for online users. User-generated data from Web 2.0 sites provide rich personal information (e.g., personal preferences and interests) and can be utilized to obtain insight about cyber communities and their social networks. Many studies have focused on leveraging user-generated information to analyze blogs and forums, but few studies have applied this approach to video-sharing Web sites. In this study, we propose a text-based framework for video content classification of online-video sharing Web sites. Different types of user-generated data (e.g., titles, descriptions, and comments) were used as proxies for online videos, and three types of text features (lexical, syntactic, and content-specific features) were extracted. Three feature-based classification techniques (C4.5, Naïve Bayes, and Support Vector Machine) were used to classify videos. To evaluate the proposed framework, user-generated data from candidate videos, which were identified by searching user-given keywords on YouTube, were first collected. Then, a subset of the collected data was randomly selected and manually tagged by users as our experiment data. The experimental results showed that the proposed approach was able to classify online videos based on users' interests with accuracy rates up to 87.2%, and all three types of text features contributed to discriminating videos. Support Vector Machine outperformed C4.5 and Naïve Bayes techniques in our experiments. In addition, our case study further demonstrated that accurate video-classification results are very useful for identifying implicit cyber communities on video-sharing Web sites.

0.022777952 = product of:
  0.09111181 = sum of:
    0.0750048 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0750048 = score(doc=3387,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.57616633 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Libraries are the tools we use to learn and to answer our questions. The quality of our work depends, among others, on the quality of the tools we use. Recent research in digital libraries is focused, on one hand on improving the infrastructure of the digital library management systems (DLMS), and on the other on improving the metadata models used to annotate collections of objects maintained by DLMS. The latter includes, among others, the semantic web and social networking technologies. Recently, the semantic web and social networking technologies are being introduced to the digital libraries domain. The expected outcome is that the overall quality of information discovery in digital libraries can be improved by employing social and semantic technologies. In this chapter we present the results of an evaluation of social and semantic end-user information discovery services for the digital libraries.

Date

1. 8.2010 12:35:22

Source

Semantic digital libraries. Eds.: S.R. Kruk, B. McDaniel

0.021718726 = product of:
  0.0868749 = sum of:
    0.049294014 = weight(_text_:studies in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049294014 = score(doc=1091,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3117402 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
    0.03758089 = product of:
      0.07516178 = sum of:
        0.07516178 = weight(_text_:area in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07516178 = score(doc=1091,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.38494104 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

0.017221604 = product of:
  0.068886414 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
    0.0265737 = product of:
      0.0531474 = sum of:
        0.0531474 = weight(_text_:area in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0531474 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.27219442 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Connotea is a free online reference management and social bookmarking service for scientists created by Nature Publishing Group. While somewhat experimental in nature, Connotea already has a large and growing number of users, and is a real, fully functioning service. The label 'experimental' is not meant to imply that the service is any way ephemeral or esoteric, rather that the concept of social bookmarking itself and the application of that concept to reference management are both recent developments. Connotea is under active development, and we are still in the process of discovering how people will use it. In addition to Connotea being a free and public service, the core code is freely available under an open source license. Connotea was conceived from the outset as an online, social tool. Seeing the possibilities that del.icio.us was opening up for its users in the area of general web linking, we realised that scholarly reference management was a similar problem space. Connotea was designed and developed late in 2004, and soft-launched at the end of December 2004. Usage has grown over the past several months, to the point where there is now enough data in the system for interesting second-order effects to emerge. This paper will start by giving an overview of Connotea, and will outline the key concepts and describe its main features. We will then take the reader on a brief guided tour, show some of the aforementioned second-order effects, and end with a discussion of Connotea's likely future direction.

0.017221604 = product of:
  0.068886414 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
    0.0265737 = product of:
      0.0531474 = sum of:
        0.0531474 = weight(_text_:area in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0531474 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.27219442 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

0.014620107 = product of:
  0.058480427 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=416,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 416, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=416)
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=416,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 416, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=416)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

In many digital libraries, visual objects are published and metadata attached to allow for search and retrieval. For visual objects in which people appear, names are often added to the metadata so that digital library users can search for people appearing in these objects. Although this seems straightforward, there are ethical implications of adding names to metadata for visual objects. This paper explores the impact of this action and discusses relevant ethical issues it raises. It asserts that an individual's right to privacy and control over personal information must be weighed against the benefit of the object to society and the professional ethic to authentically represent a resource through its metadata. Context and an understanding of the major ethical issues will inform the practical decision of whether to keep objects online and add metadata to them, but items should generally be published unless there are clear ethical violations or a community relationship is in jeopardy.

Content

Beitrag aus einem Themenheft zu den Proceedings of the 2nd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Information Organization, June 15-16, 2012, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Hope A. Olson, Conference Chair. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_5_c.pdf.

0.014483592 = product of:
  0.057934366 = sum of:
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This study is an examination of the overlap between author-assigned keywords and cataloger-assigned Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for a set of electronic theses and dissertations in Ohio State University's online catalog. The project is intended to contribute to the literature on the issue of keywords versus controlled vocabularies in the use of online catalogs and databases. Findings support previous studies' conclusions that both keywords and controlled vocabularies complement one another. Further, even in the presence of bibliographic record enhancements, such as abstracts or summaries, keywords and subject headings provided a significant number of unique terms that could affect the success of keyword searches. Implications for the maintenance of controlled vocabularies such as LCSH also are discussed in light of the patterns of matches and nonmatches found between the keywords and their corresponding subject headings.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0128253605 = product of:
  0.102602884 = sum of:
    0.102602884 = weight(_text_:case in 3360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.102602884 = score(doc=3360,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.58892816 = fieldWeight in 3360, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3360)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

This paper presents a longitudinal case study and analysis of tagging patterns in del.icio.us. Previous research has indicated that a tagging vocabulary will stabilize over time, suggesting that convergence may occur. This case study investigates the possibility of stability and convergence in a subset of the tagging vocabulary used with del.icio.us.

0.012275542 = product of:
  0.09820434 = sum of:
    0.09820434 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09820434 = score(doc=2364,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.7543788 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

Inhalt: What is social software? -- Blogs -- Blogs in libraries : practical applications -- RSS -- Wikis -- Online communities -- Social networking -- Social bookmarking and collaborative filtering -- Tools for synchronous online reference -- The mobile revolution -- Podcasting -- Screencasting and vodcasting -- Gaming -- What will work @ your library -- Keeping up : a primer -- Future trends in social software.

LCSH

Libraries and the Internet
Telecommunication in libraries
Libraries and community
Libraries / Information technology
Electronic reference services (Libraries)

Subject

Libraries and the Internet
Telecommunication in libraries
Libraries and community
Libraries / Information technology
Electronic reference services (Libraries)

0.012134219 = product of:
  0.048536874 = sum of:
    0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037798867 = score(doc=2666,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.010738007 = product of:
      0.021476014 = sum of:
        0.021476014 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021476014 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.

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

0.011538977 = product of:
  0.046155907 = sum of:
    0.016537005 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016537005 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.12703274 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
    0.029618902 = weight(_text_:case in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029618902 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.17000891 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.
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.

0.01111404 = product of:
  0.04445616 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Some members of the library community, including the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, have suggested that libraries should open up their catalogs to allow users to add descriptive tags to the bibliographic data in catalog records. The web site LibraryThing currently permits its members to add such user tags to its records for books and therefore provides a useful resource to contrast with library bibliographic records. A comparison between the LibraryThing tags for a group of books and the library-supplied subject headings for the same books shows that users and catalogers approach these descriptors very differently. Because of these differences, user tags can enhance subject access to library materials, but they cannot entirely replace controlled vocabularies such as the Library of Congress subject headings.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.009261699 = product of:
  0.037046798 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

More and more users index everything on their own in the web 2.0. There are services for links, videos, pictures, books, encyclopaedic articles and scientific articles. All these services are library independent. But must that really be? Can't libraries help with their experience and tools to make user indexing better? On the experience of a project from German language Wikipedia together with the German person authority files (Personen Namen Datei - PND) located at German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) I would like to show what is possible. How users can and will use the authority files, if we let them. We will take a look how the project worked and what we can learn for future projects. Conclusions - Authority files can have a role in the web 2.0 - there must be an open interface/ service for retrieval - everything that is indexed on the net with authority files can be easy integrated in a federated search - O'Reilly: You have to found ways that your data get more important that more it will be used

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".

0.008975883 = product of:
  0.071807064 = sum of:
    0.071807064 = weight(_text_:case in 2893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071807064 = score(doc=2893,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 2893, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2893)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Trendthemen, wie Social Tagging oder Web 2.0, bergen generell die Gefahr, dass Adaptionsentscheidungen auf Basis von im öffentlichen Internet vorgefundenen und den Medien lautstark thematisierten Erfolgsbeispielen getroffen werden. Für die interne Anwendung in einer Organisation ist dieses Vorgehen jedoch risikoreich. Deshalb sollte ein ausführlicher Business Case am Anfang jedes SocialTagging-Projekts stehen, der Nutzen- und Risikopotenziale realistisch einzuschätzen vermag. Der vorliegende Beitrag listet dazu exemplarisch die wichtigsten Aspekte für die Einschätzung des Wertbeitrags und der Stolpersteine für Social Tagging in Intranets und vergleichbaren internen Informationssystemen wie Mitarbeiterportalen, Dokumenten-Repositories und Knowledge Bases auf.

0.0074093603 = product of:
  0.029637441 = sum of:
    0.018899433 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018899433 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.14518027 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
    0.010738007 = product of:
      0.021476014 = sum of:
        0.021476014 = weight(_text_:22 in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021476014 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

My keynote at the workshop "Social Tagging in Knowledge Organization" was a great opportunity to make and share new experiences. For the first time ever, I sat in my office at home and gave a live web video presentation to a conference audience elsewhere on the globe. At the same time, it was also an opportunity to premier my conceptual model "Matrix of Perception" to an interdisciplinary audience of researchers and practitioners with a variety of backgrounds - reaching from philosophy, psychology, pedagogy and computation to library science and economics. The interdisciplinary approach of the conference is also mirrored in the structure of this volume, with articles on the theoretical background, the empirical analysis and the potential applications of tagging, for instance in university libraries, e-learning, or e-commerce. As an introduction to the topic of "social tagging" I would like to draw your attention to some foundation concepts of the phenomenon I have racked my brain with for the last few month. One thing I have seen missing in recent research and system development is a focus on the variety of user perspectives in social tagging. Different people perceive tagging in complex variegated ways and use this form of knowledge organization for a variety of purposes. My analytical interest lies in understanding the personas and patterns in tagging systems and in being able to label their different perceptions. To come up with a concise picture of user expectations, needs and activities, I have broken down the perspectives on tagging into two different categories, namely "faces" and "depth". When put together, they form the "Matrix of Perception" - a nuanced view of stakeholders and their respective levels of participation.

Date

22. 6.2009 9:15:45

0.0070872875 = product of:
  0.0566983 = sum of:
    0.0566983 = weight(_text_:libraries in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0566983 = score(doc=309,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4355408 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper describes a survey on how system vendors and libraries handled tagging in OPACs and discovery layers. Tags are user added subject metadata, also called folksonomies. This survey also investigated user behavior when they face the possibility to tag. The findings indicate that legacy/classic systems have no tagging capability. About 47% of the discovery tools provide tagging function. About 49% of the libraries that have a system with tagging capability have turned the tagging function on in their OPACs and discovery tools. Only 40% of the libraries that turned tagging on actually utilized user added subject metadata as access point to collections. Academic library users are less active in tagging than public library users.

Source

Beyond libraries - subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web. IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn

0.0061617517 = product of:
  0.049294014 = sum of:
    0.049294014 = weight(_text_:studies in 3828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049294014 = score(doc=3828,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3117402 = fieldWeight in 3828, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3828)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to understand users' motivations and intentions in the use of institutional collections on social tagging sites. Previous social tagging studies have collected social tagging data and analyzed how tagging functions as a tool to organize and retrieve information. Many studies focused on the patterns of tagging rather than the users' perspectives. To provide a more comprehensive picture of users' social tagging activities in institutional collections, and how this compares to social tagging in a more personal context, we collected data from social tagging users by surveying 7,563 participants in the Library of Congress's Flickr Collection. We asked users to describe their motivations for activities within the LC Flickr Collection in their own words using open-ended questions. As a result, we identified 11 motivations using a bottom-up, open-coding approach: affective reactions, opinion on photo, interest in subject, contribution to description, knowledge sharing, improving findability, social network, appreciation, personal use, and personal relationship. Our study revealed that affective or emotional reactions play a critical role in the use of social tagging of institutional collections by comparing our findings to existing frameworks for tagging motivations. We also examined the relationships between participants' occupations and our 11 motivations.