-
Morrison, P.J.: Tagging and searching : search retrieval effectiveness of folksonomies on the World Wide Web (2008)
0.06
0.062111672 = product of:
0.093167506 = sum of:
0.018387845 = weight(_text_:information in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018387845 = score(doc=2109,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
0.07477966 = sum of:
0.032535225 = weight(_text_:systems in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032535225 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
0.04224443 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04224443 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2109, 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=2109)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Many Web sites have begun allowing users to submit items to a collection and tag them with keywords. The folksonomies built from these tags are an interesting topic that has seen little empirical research. This study compared the search information retrieval (IR) performance of folksonomies from social bookmarking Web sites against search engines and subject directories. Thirty-four participants created 103 queries for various information needs. Results from each IR system were collected and participants judged relevance. Folksonomy search results overlapped with those from the other systems, and documents found by both search engines and folksonomies were significantly more likely to be judged relevant than those returned by any single IR system type. The search engines in the study had the highest precision and recall, but the folksonomies fared surprisingly well. Del.icio.us was statistically indistinguishable from the directories in many cases. Overall the directories were more precise than the folksonomies but they had similar recall scores. Better query handling may enhance folksonomy IR performance further. The folksonomies studied were promising, and may be able to improve Web search performance.
- Date
- 1. 8.2008 12:39:22
- Source
- Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.4, S.1562-1579
-
Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Power tags in information retrieval (2010)
0.03
0.033933222 = product of:
0.050899833 = sum of:
0.017693711 = weight(_text_:information in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017693711 = score(doc=865,freq=8.0), product of:
0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = 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)
0.033206124 = product of:
0.06641225 = sum of:
0.06641225 = weight(_text_:systems in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06641225 = score(doc=865,freq=12.0), product of:
0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.41585106 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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.
-
Mai, J.-E.: Folksonomies and the new order : authority in the digital disorder (2011)
0.03
0.03359218 = product of:
0.05038827 = sum of:
0.017515881 = weight(_text_:information in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017515881 = score(doc=4553,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
0.032872386 = product of:
0.06574477 = sum of:
0.06574477 = weight(_text_:systems in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06574477 = score(doc=4553,freq=6.0), product of:
0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.41167158 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- While the organization and representation of information and knowledge have historically been done by professionals, the rise of social media has spread the notion that this can be done more collaboratively. A more collaborative approach would entail a change in the role of professionals and in the goals and values of the systems. This paper explores the notion of authority and the role of professionals in a changing environment where more people participate in the organization and representation of information and knowledge. The paper questions the traditional role of the professionals and argues that systems must be designed to facilitate trust and authority, and that the authority of folksonomies and systems comes from the users' collective interpretations and meaning production.
-
Wesch, M.: Information R/evolution (2006)
0.03
0.032942522 = product of:
0.04941378 = sum of:
0.024771197 = weight(_text_:information in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024771197 = score(doc=1267,freq=8.0), product of:
0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1267, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1267)
0.024642585 = product of:
0.04928517 = sum of:
0.04928517 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04928517 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1267, 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=1267)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This video explores the changes in the way we find, store, create, critique, and share information. This video was created as a conversation starter, and works especially well when brainstorming with people about the near future and the skills needed in order to harness, evaluate, and create information effectively. Ein sehr schöner Kurzfilm von Michael Wesch, dem wir auch den Beitrag zu Web 2.0 (The Machine is Us/ing Us) verdanken (vor einiger Zeit hier besprochen), thematisiert die Veränderung der Handhabung von Information (insbesondere die Strukturierung und Ordnung, aber auch die Generierung und Speicherung), die auf ihre digitale Gestalt zurückzuführen ist. Kernaussage: Da die Informationen keine physikalischen Beschränkungen mehr unterworfen sind, wird die Ordnung der Informationen vielfältiger, flexibler und für jedermann einfacher zugänglich.
- Date
- 5. 1.2008 19:22:48
-
Macgregor, G.; McCulloch, E.: Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool (2006)
0.03
0.03252198 = product of:
0.04878297 = sum of:
0.021670282 = weight(_text_:information in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021670282 = score(doc=764,freq=12.0), product of:
0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
0.027112689 = product of:
0.054225378 = sum of:
0.054225378 = weight(_text_:systems in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054225378 = score(doc=764,freq=8.0), product of:
0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.339541 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to provide an overview of the collaborative tagging phenomenon and explore some of the reasons for its emergence. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reviews the related literature and discusses some of the problems associated with, and the potential of, collaborative tagging approaches for knowledge organisation and general resource discovery. A definition of controlled vocabularies is proposed and used to assess the efficacy of collaborative tagging. An exposition of the collaborative tagging model is provided and a review of the major contributions to the tagging literature is presented. Findings - There are numerous difficulties with collaborative tagging systems (e.g. low precision, lack of collocation, etc.) that originate from the absence of properties that characterise controlled vocabularies. However, such systems can not be dismissed. Librarians and information professionals have lessons to learn from the interactive and social aspects exemplified by collaborative tagging systems, as well as their success in engaging users with information management. The future co-existence of controlled vocabularies and collaborative tagging is predicted, with each appropriate for use within distinct information contexts: formal and informal. Research limitations/implications - Librarians and information professional researchers should be playing a leading role in research aimed at assessing the efficacy of collaborative tagging in relation to information storage, organisation, and retrieval, and to influence the future development of collaborative tagging systems. Practical implications - The paper indicates clear areas where digital libraries and repositories could innovate in order to better engage users with information. Originality/value - At time of writing there were no literature reviews summarising the main contributions to the collaborative tagging research or debate.
-
Peters, I.: Folksonomies, social tagging and information retrieval (2011)
0.03
0.03207753 = product of:
0.048116293 = sum of:
0.03184868 = weight(_text_:information in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03184868 = score(doc=4907,freq=18.0), product of:
0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.34911853 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
0.016267613 = product of:
0.032535225 = sum of:
0.032535225 = weight(_text_:systems in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032535225 = score(doc=4907,freq=2.0), product of:
0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Services in Web 2.0 generate a large quantity of information, distributed over a range of resources (e.g. photos, URLs, videos) and integrated into different platforms (e.g. social bookmarking systems, sharing platforms (Peters, 2009). To adequately use this mass of information and to extract it from the platforms, users must be equipped with suitable tools and knowledge. After all, the best information is useless if users cannot find it: 'The model of information consumption relies on the information being found' (Vander Wal, 2004). In Web 2.0, the retrieval component has been established through so-called folksonomies (Vander Wal, 2005a), which are considered as several combinations of an information resource, one or more freely chosen keywords ('tags') and a user. Web 2.0 services that use folksonomies as an indexing and retrieval tool are defined as 'collaborative information services' because they allow for the collaborative creation of a public database that is accessible to all users (registered, where necessary) via the tags of the folksonomy (Ding et al., 2009; Heymann, Paepcke and Garcia-Molina, 2010).
- Source
- Innovations in information retrieval: perspectives for theory and practice. Eds.: A. Foster, u. P. Rafferty
-
Rafferty, P.: Tagging (2018)
0.03
0.026150528 = product of:
0.03922579 = sum of:
0.012385598 = weight(_text_:information in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012385598 = score(doc=4647,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
0.026840193 = product of:
0.053680386 = sum of:
0.053680386 = weight(_text_:systems in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053680386 = score(doc=4647,freq=4.0), product of:
0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This article examines tagging as knowledge organization. Tagging is a kind of indexing, a process of labelling and categorizing information made to support resource discovery for users. Social tagging generally means the practice whereby internet users generate keywords to describe, categorise or comment on digital content. The value of tagging comes when social tags within a collection are aggregated and shared through a folksonomy. This article examines definitions of tagging and folksonomy, and discusses the functions, advantages and disadvantages of tagging systems in relation to knowledge organization before discussing studies that have compared tagging and conventional library-based knowledge organization systems. Approaches to disciplining tagging practice are examined and tagger motivation discussed. Finally, the article outlines current research fronts.
-
Furner, J.: Folksonomies (2009)
0.02
0.023896746 = product of:
0.03584512 = sum of:
0.01415497 = weight(_text_:information in 3857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01415497 = score(doc=3857,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3857, 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=3857)
0.02169015 = product of:
0.0433803 = sum of:
0.0433803 = weight(_text_:systems in 3857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0433803 = score(doc=3857,freq=2.0), product of:
0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 3857, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3857)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Folksonomies are indexing languages that emerge from the distributed resource-description activity of multiple agents who make use of online tagging services to assign tags (i.e., category labels) to the resources in collections. Although individuals' motivations for engaging in tagging activity vary widely, folksonomy-based retrieval systems can be evaluated by measuring the degree to which taggers and searchers agree on tag-resource pairings.
- Source
- Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
-
Pera, M.S.; Lund, W.; Ng, Y.-K.: ¬A sophisticated library search strategy using folksonomies and similarity matching (2009)
0.02
0.022996515 = product of:
0.034494773 = sum of:
0.015323205 = weight(_text_:information in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015323205 = score(doc=2939,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
0.019171566 = product of:
0.03834313 = sum of:
0.03834313 = weight(_text_:systems in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03834313 = score(doc=2939,freq=4.0), product of:
0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Libraries, private and public, offer valuable resources to library patrons. As of today, the only way to locate information archived exclusively in libraries is through their catalogs. Library patrons, however, often find it difficult to formulate a proper query, which requires using specific keywords assigned to different fields of desired library catalog records, to obtain relevant results. These improperly formulated queries often yield irrelevant results or no results at all. This negative experience in dealing with existing library systems turns library patrons away from directly querying library catalogs; instead, they rely on Web search engines to perform their searches first, and upon obtaining the initial information (e.g., titles, subject headings, or authors) on the desired library materials, they query library catalogs. This searching strategy is an evidence of failure of today's library systems. In solving this problem, we propose an enhanced library system, which allows partial, similarity matching of (a) tags defined by ordinary users at a folksonomy site that describe the content of books and (b) unrestricted keywords specified by an ordinary library patron in a query to search for relevant library catalog records. The proposed library system allows patrons posting a query Q using commonly used words and ranks the retrieved results according to their degrees of resemblance with Q while maintaining the query processing time comparable with that achieved by current library search engines.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.7, S.1392-1406
-
Hayman, S.; Lothian, N.: Taxonomy directed folksonomies : integrating user tagging and controlled vocabularies for Australian education networks (2007)
0.02
0.022708347 = product of:
0.03406252 = sum of:
0.018725265 = weight(_text_:information in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018725265 = score(doc=705,freq=14.0), product of:
0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.20526241 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
0.015337253 = product of:
0.030674506 = sum of:
0.030674506 = weight(_text_:systems in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030674506 = score(doc=705,freq=4.0), product of:
0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.19207339 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- What is the role of controlled vocabulary in a Web 2.0 world? Can we have the best of both worlds: balancing folksonomies and controlled vocabularies to help communities of users find and share information and resources most relevant to them? education.au develops and manages Australian online services for education and training. Its goal is to bring people, learning and technology together. education.au projects are increasingly involved in exploring the use of Web 2.0 developments building on user ideas, knowledge and experience, and how these might be integrated with existing information management systems. This paper presents work being undertaken in this area, particularly in relation to controlled vocabularies, and discusses the challenges faced. Education Network Australia (edna) is a leading online resource collection and collaborative network for education, with an extensive repository of selected educational resources with metadata created by educators and information specialists. It uses controlled vocabularies for metadata creation and searching, where users receive suggested related terms from an education thesaurus, with their results. We recognise that no formal thesaurus can keep pace with user needs so are interested in exploiting the power of folksonomies. We describe a proof of concept project to develop community contributions to managing information and resources, using Taxonomy-Directed Folksonomy. An established taxonomy from the Australian education sector suggests terms for tagging and users can suggest terms. Importantly, the folksonomy will feed back into the taxonomy showing gaps in coverage and helping us to monitor new terms and usage to improve and develop our formal taxonomies. This model would initially sit alongside the current edna repositories, tools and services but will give us valuable user contributed resources as well as information about how users manage resources. Observing terms suggested, chosen and used in folksonomies is a rich source of information for developing our formal systems so that we can indeed get the best of both worlds.
- 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
-
Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008)
0.02
0.022493085 = product of:
0.033739626 = sum of:
0.008846856 = weight(_text_:information in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008846856 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = 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)
0.02489277 = product of:
0.04978554 = sum of:
0.04978554 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04978554 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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.
- 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
-
Xie, H.; Li, X.; Wang, T.; Lau, R.Y.K.; Wong, T.-L.; Chen, L.; Wang, F.L.; Li, Q.: Incorporating sentiment into tag-based user profiles and resource profiles for personalized search in folksonomy (2016)
0.02
0.021959461 = product of:
0.032939192 = sum of:
0.01415497 = weight(_text_:information in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01415497 = score(doc=2671,freq=8.0), product of:
0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
0.018784221 = product of:
0.037568443 = sum of:
0.037568443 = weight(_text_:systems in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037568443 = score(doc=2671,freq=6.0), product of:
0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.2352409 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- In recent years, there has been a rapid growth of user-generated data in collaborative tagging (a.k.a. folksonomy-based) systems due to the prevailing of Web 2.0 communities. To effectively assist users to find their desired resources, it is critical to understand user behaviors and preferences. Tag-based profile techniques, which model users and resources by a vector of relevant tags, are widely employed in folksonomy-based systems. This is mainly because that personalized search and recommendations can be facilitated by measuring relevance between user profiles and resource profiles. However, conventional measurements neglect the sentiment aspect of user-generated tags. In fact, tags can be very emotional and subjective, as users usually express their perceptions and feelings about the resources by tags. Therefore, it is necessary to take sentiment relevance into account into measurements. In this paper, we present a novel generic framework SenticRank to incorporate various sentiment information to various sentiment-based information for personalized search by user profiles and resource profiles. In this framework, content-based sentiment ranking and collaborative sentiment ranking methods are proposed to obtain sentiment-based personalized ranking. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work of integrating sentiment information to address the problem of the personalized tag-based search in collaborative tagging systems. Moreover, we compare the proposed sentiment-based personalized search with baselines in the experiments, the results of which have verified the effectiveness of the proposed framework. In addition, we study the influences by popular sentiment dictionaries, and SenticNet is the most prominent knowledge base to boost the performance of personalized search in folksonomy.
- Source
- Information processing and management. 52(2016) no.1, S.61-72
-
Noruzi, A.: Folksonomies : (un)controlled vocabulary? (2006)
0.02
0.020909652 = product of:
0.03136448 = sum of:
0.012385598 = weight(_text_:information in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012385598 = score(doc=404,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
0.01897888 = product of:
0.03795776 = sum of:
0.03795776 = weight(_text_:systems in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03795776 = score(doc=404,freq=2.0), product of:
0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Folksonomy, a free-form tagging, is a user-generated classification system of web contents that allows users to tag their favorite web resources with their chosen words or phrases selected from natural language. These tags (also called concepts, categories, facets or entities) can be used to classify web resources and to express users' preferences. Folksonomy-based systems allow users to classify web resources through tagging bookmarks, photos or other web resources and saving them to a public web site like Del.icio.us. Thus information about web resources and online articles can be shared in an easy way. The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the folksonomy tagging phenomenon (also called social tagging and social bookmarking) and explore some of the reasons why we need controlled vocabularies, discussing the problems associated with folksonomy.
-
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)
0.02
0.020772127 = product of:
0.06231638 = sum of:
0.06231638 = sum of:
0.027112689 = weight(_text_:systems in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027112689 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
0.03520369 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03520369 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- There is a growing interest into how we represent and share tagging data in collaborative tagging systems. Conventional tags, meaning freely created tags that are not associated with a structured ontology, are not naturally suited for collaborative processes, due to linguistic and grammatical variations, as well as human typing errors. Additionally, tags reflect personal views of the world by individual users, and are not normalised for synonymy, morphology or any other mapping. Our view is that the conventional approach provides very limited semantic value for collaboration. Moreover, in cases where there is some semantic value, automatically sharing semantics via computer manipulations is extremely problematic. This paper explores these problems by discussing approaches for collaborative tagging activities at a semantic level, and presenting conceptual models for collaborative tagging activities and folksonomies. We present criteria for the comparison of existing tag ontologies and discuss their strengths and weaknesses in relation to these criteria.
- 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
-
Sauperl, A.: UDC and Folksonomies (2010)
0.02
0.019253034 = product of:
0.02887955 = sum of:
0.015323205 = weight(_text_:information in 4069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015323205 = score(doc=4069,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 4069, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4069)
0.013556344 = product of:
0.027112689 = sum of:
0.027112689 = weight(_text_:systems in 4069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027112689 = score(doc=4069,freq=2.0), product of:
0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 4069, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4069)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Social tagging systems, known as "folksonomies," represent an important part of web resource discovery as they enable free and unrestricted browsing through information space. Folksonomies consisting of subject designators (tags) assigned by users, however, have one important drawback: they do not express semantic relationships, either hierarchical or associative, between tags. As a consequence, the use of tags to browse information resources requires moving from one resource to another, based on coincidence and not on the pre-established meaningful or logical connections that may exist between related resources. We suggest that the semantic structure of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) may be used in complementing and supporting tag-based browsing. In this work, two specific questions were investigated: 1) Are terms used as tags in folksonomies included in the UDC?; and, 2) Which facets of UDC match the characteristics of documents or information objects that are tagged in folksonomies? A collection of the most popular tags from Amazon, LibraryThing, Delicious, and 43Things was investigated. The universal nature of UDC was examined through the universality of topics and facets covering diverse human interests which are at the same time interconnected and form a rich and intricate semantic structure. The results suggest that UDC-supported folksonomies could be implemented in resource discovery, in particular in library portals and catalogues.
-
Yi, K.; Chan, L.M.: Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress subject headings : an exploratory study (2009)
0.02
0.015402427 = product of:
0.02310364 = sum of:
0.012258564 = weight(_text_:information in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012258564 = score(doc=3616,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
0.010845075 = product of:
0.02169015 = sum of:
0.02169015 = weight(_text_:systems in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02169015 = score(doc=3616,freq=2.0), product of:
0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the linking of a folksonomy (user vocabulary) and LCSH (controlled vocabulary) on the basis of word matching, for the potential use of LCSH in bringing order to folksonomies. Design/methodology/approach - A selected sample of a folksonomy from a popular collaborative tagging system, Delicious, was word-matched with LCSH. LCSH was transformed into a tree structure called an LCSH tree for the matching. A close examination was conducted on the characteristics of folksonomies, the overlap of folksonomies with LCSH, and the distribution of folksonomies over the LCSH tree. Findings - The experimental results showed that the total proportion of tags being matched with LC subject headings constituted approximately two-thirds of all tags involved, with an additional 10 percent of the remaining tags having potential matches. A number of barriers for the linking as well as two areas in need of improving the matching are identified and described. Three important tag distribution patterns over the LCSH tree were identified and supported: skewedness, multifacet, and Zipfian-pattern. Research limitations/implications - The results of the study can be adopted for the development of innovative methods of mapping between folksonomy and LCSH, which directly contributes to effective access and retrieval of tagged web resources and to the integration of multiple information repositories based on the two vocabularies. Practical implications - The linking of controlled vocabularies can be applicable to enhance information retrieval capability within collaborative tagging systems as well as across various tagging system information depositories and bibliographic databases. Originality/value - This is among frontier works that examines the potential of linking a folksonomy, extracted from a collaborative tagging system, to an authority-maintained subject heading system. It provides exploratory data to support further advanced mapping methods for linking the two vocabularies.
-
Shirky, C.: Ontology is overrated : categories, links, and tags (2005)
0.01
0.014935466 = product of:
0.0224032 = sum of:
0.008846856 = weight(_text_:information in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008846856 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = 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)
0.013556344 = product of:
0.027112689 = sum of:
0.027112689 = weight(_text_:systems in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027112689 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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.
-
Braun, M.: Lesezeichen zum Stöbern : "Social bookmark"-Seiten setzen auf die Empfehlungen ihrer Nutzer (2007)
0.01
0.014105975 = product of:
0.021158962 = sum of:
0.007077485 = weight(_text_:information in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007077485 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 3373, 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=3373)
0.014081477 = product of:
0.028162954 = sum of:
0.028162954 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028162954 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3373, 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=3373)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Content
- "Irgendwann ist es einfach zu viel Information. Einmal "Schokolade" bei Google eingeben und mal eben 9 870 000 Links zur Auswahl. "Pilgern - 800 000 Einträge. 21400 000 für "Hörbuch. Die Auswahl fällt schwer, und wer hat schon die Geduld, sich alle Seiten anzugucken. Am besten wäre es, irgendjemand könnte eine der, vielen Seiten empfehlen. Auf eben dieses Prinzip setzen immer mehr Internet-Seiten. Seiten wie www.mister-wong.de bestehen nur aus Empfehlungen von Nutzern für Nutzer. Immerhin vier empfehlen die Webseite zum Pralinenclub, acht Nutzer haben sich für www.theobroma-cacao.de ein Lesezeichen angelegt, beim Pilgern sind sich auch gleich einige Benutzer einig, welche Seite sie am liebsten zum Thema lesen und empfehlen. "Social bookmarks" - Lesezeichen, die man anderen zur Verfügung stellt - sind vor allem auf englischsprachigen Seiten zu finden. Mit Anbietern wie "Mister Wong" oder "Netselektor" können jetzt auch die Deutschen ihre Lieblingslesezeichen im Internet mit anderen teilen. "Bei den großen Suchmaschinen haben es gute Seiten oft schwer: Wenn sie nicht bei Yahoo oder Google nach der Suchanfrage ganz oben stehen, findet sie niemand", sagt "Mister Wong"Pressesprecher Christian Clawien. Für ihn ist das Konzept der "Social bookmarks" die ideale Alternative zur mechanischen Suchmaschine. Noch sind die Zahlen der Aktiven aber gering. 1,3 Millionen abgespeicherte Bookmarks verzeichnet "Mister Wong" seit der Gründung im März 2006. Vor allem Leute, die sowieso bereits einen guten Draht zum Internet haben, nutzten das Angebot, sagt Clawien. Langsam beginnt die Phase, wo Monetarisierung möglich ist." Langfristig soll auch Werbung auf der Seite erscheinen. Bei "www.netselektor.de", im November 2006 gegründet, sitzt zudem noch eine Redaktion vor dem Computer, die die abgelegten Lesezeichen der Nutzer durchforstet und die besten Empfehlungen noch mal als qualitativ hochwertig vorstellt. Nach und nach soll so in Zusammenarbeit mit den Usern ein "Best-of-Internet" entstehen. Natürlich nur mit den Internet-Juwelen, die einer Empfehlung würdig sind. Allerdings erreichen die "Social bookmark"-Seiten auch schnell ihre Grenzen: Nicht alle Stichworte bringen Ergebnisse, nicht immer sind die Vorlieben der Nutzer für Internet-Seiten nachvollziehbar, und noch reicht auch nicht die Anzahl der beteiligten Nutzer, um tatsächlich all die verborgenen Juwelen im riesigen weltweiten Netz zutage zu fördern. Originelles gibt es aber trotzdem schon jetzt - vom Karaoke Trainer bis zu www.dontclick.it", die Seite, die ohne Maus funktionieren soll."
- Date
- 3. 5.1997 8:44:22
-
Broughton, V.: Automatic metadata generation : Digital resource description without human intervention (2007)
0.01
0.014081477 = product of:
0.04224443 = sum of:
0.04224443 = product of:
0.08448886 = sum of:
0.08448886 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08448886 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 9.2007 15:41:14
-
Voss, J.: Collaborative thesaurus tagging the Wikipedia way (2006)
0.01
0.010224836 = product of:
0.030674506 = sum of:
0.030674506 = product of:
0.061349012 = sum of:
0.061349012 = weight(_text_:systems in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061349012 = score(doc=620,freq=4.0), product of:
0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.051966466 = queryNorm
0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 620, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=620)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- This paper explores the system of categories that is used to classify articles in Wikipedia. It is compared to collaborative tagging systems like del.icio.us and to hierarchical classification like the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). Specifics and commonalities of these systems of subject indexing are exposed. Analysis of structural and statistical properties (descriptors per record, records per descriptor, descriptor levels) shows that the category system of Wikimedia is a thesaurus that combines collaborative tagging and hierarchical subject indexing in a special way.
