Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Folksonomies"
  1. Morrison, P.J.: Tagging and searching : search retrieval effectiveness of folksonomies on the World Wide Web (2008) 0.02 
    0.020796211 = product of:
  0.055456564 = sum of:
    0.027509877 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027509877 = score(doc=2109,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
    0.014911801 = product of:
      0.029823601 = sum of:
        0.029823601 = weight(_text_:system in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029823601 = score(doc=2109,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013034889 = product of:
      0.026069777 = sum of:
        0.026069777 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026069777 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.112301625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    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
  2. Yi, K.; Chan, L.M.: Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress subject headings : an exploratory study (2009) 0.02 
    0.015998874 = product of:
  0.063995495 = sum of:
    0.018339919 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018339919 = score(doc=3616,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
    0.04565558 = sum of:
      0.028117962 = weight(_text_:system in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028117962 = score(doc=3616,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.032069415 = queryNorm
          0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
      0.017537614 = weight(_text_:29 in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017537614 = score(doc=3616,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11281017 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.032069415 = queryNorm
          0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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.
    Date
    20. 6.2010 14:29:15
  3. Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Power tags in information retrieval (2010) 0.01 
    0.012123488 = product of:
  0.04849395 = sum of:
    0.03970709 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03970709 = score(doc=865,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.40932083 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
    0.008786863 = product of:
      0.017573725 = sum of:
        0.017573725 = weight(_text_:system in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017573725 = score(doc=865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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.
  4. Peters, I.: Folksonomies und kollaborative Informationsdienste : eine Alternative zur Websuche? (2011) 0.01 
    0.010868544 = product of:
  0.043474175 = sum of:
    0.025936563 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025936563 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
    0.017537614 = product of:
      0.03507523 = sum of:
        0.03507523 = weight(_text_:29 in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03507523 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11281017 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Folksonomies ermöglichen den Nutzern in Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten den Zugang zu verschiedenartigen Informationsressourcen. In welchen Fällen beide Bestandteile des Web 2.0 am besten für das Information Retrieval geeignet sind und wo sie die Websuche ggf. ersetzen können, wird in diesem Beitrag diskutiert. Dazu erfolgt eine detaillierte Betrachtung der Reichweite von Social-Bookmarking-Systemen und Sharing-Systemen sowie der Retrievaleffektivität von Folksonomies innerhalb von Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten.
    Pages
    S.29-53
  5. Macgregor, G.; McCulloch, E.: Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool (2006) 0.01 
    0.010549578 = product of:
  0.04219831 = sum of:
    0.016210351 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016210351 = score(doc=764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
    0.02598796 = product of:
      0.05197592 = sum of:
        0.05197592 = weight(_text_:etc in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05197592 = score(doc=764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17370372 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    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.
  6. Kim, H.H.: Toward video semantic search based on a structured folksonomy (2011) 0.01 
    0.010265838 = product of:
  0.041063353 = sum of:
    0.016210351 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016210351 = score(doc=4350,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4350, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4350)
    0.024853004 = product of:
      0.04970601 = sum of:
        0.04970601 = weight(_text_:system in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04970601 = score(doc=4350,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.49211764 = fieldWeight in 4350, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4350)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    This study investigated the effectiveness of query expansion using synonymous and co-occurrence tags in users' video searches as well as the effect of visual storyboard surrogates on users' relevance judgments when browsing videos. To do so, we designed a structured folksonomy-based system in which tag queries can be expanded via synonyms or co-occurrence words, based on the use of WordNet 2.1 synonyms and Flickr's related tags. To evaluate the structured folksonomy-based system, we conducted an experiment, the results of which suggest that the mean recall rate in the structured folksonomy-based system is statistically higher than that in a tag-based system without query expansion; however, the mean precision rate in the structured folksonomy-based system is not statistically higher than that in the tag-based system. Next, we compared the precision rates of the proposed system with storyboards (SB), in which SB and text metadata are shown to users when they browse video search results, with those of the proposed system without SB, in which only text metadata are shown. Our result showed that browsing only text surrogates-including tags without multimedia surrogates-is not sufficient for users' relevance judgments.
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  7. Bar-Ilan, J.; Belous, Y.: Children as architects of Web directories : an exploratory study (2007) 0.01 
    0.00792794 = product of:
  0.03171176 = sum of:
    0.022924898 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022924898 = score(doc=289,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
    0.008786863 = product of:
      0.017573725 = sum of:
        0.017573725 = weight(_text_:system in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017573725 = score(doc=289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Children are increasingly using the Web. Cognitive theory tells us that directory structures are especially suited for information retrieval by children; however, empirical results show that they prefer keyword searching. One of the reasons for these findings could be that the directory structures and terminology are created by grown-ups. Using a card-sorting method and an enveloping system, we simulated the structure of a directory. Our goal was to try to understand what browsable, hierarchical subject categories children create when suggested terms are supplied and they are free to add or delete terms. Twelve groups of four children each (fourth and fifth graders) participated in our exploratory study. The initial terminology presented to the children was based on names of categories used in popular directories, in the sections on Arts, Television, Music, Cinema, and Celebrities. The children were allowed to introduce additional cards and change the terms appearing on the 61 cards. Findings show that the different groups reached reasonable consensus; the majority of the category names used by existing directories were acceptable by them and only a small minority of the terms caused confusion. Our recommendation is to include children in the design process of directories, not only in designing the interface but also in designing the content structure as well.
    Theme
    Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
  8. Peters, I.; Schumann, L.; Terliesner, J.: Folksonomy-basiertes Information Retrieval unter der Lupe (2012) 0.00 
    0.0049135014 = product of:
  0.03930801 = sum of:
    0.03930801 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03930801 = score(doc=406,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 406, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=406)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Social Tagging ist eine weitverbreitete Methode, um nutzergenerierte Inhalte in Webdiensten zu indexieren. Dieser Artikel fasst die aktuelle Forschung zu Folksonomies und Effektivität von Tags in Retrievalsystemen zusammen. Es wurde ein TREC-ähnlicher Retrievaltest mit Tags und Ressourcen aus dem Social Bookmarking-Dienst delicious durchgeführt, welcher in Recall- und Precisionwerten für ausschließlich Tag-basierte Suchen resultierte. Außerdem wurden Tags in verschiedenen Stufen bereinigt und auf ihre Retrieval-Effektivität getestet. Testergebnisse zeigen, dass Retrieval in Folksonomies am besten mit kurzen Anfragen funktioniert. Hierbei sind die Recallwerte hoch, die Precisionwerte jedoch eher niedrig. Die Suchfunktion "power tags only" liefert verbesserte Precisionwerte.
  9. Peters, I.: Folksonomies, social tagging and information retrieval (2011) 0.00 
    0.0048631052 = product of:
  0.038904842 = sum of:
    0.038904842 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038904842 = score(doc=4907,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    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
  10. Peters, I.: Folksonomies : indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0 (2009) 0.00 
    0.0039707087 = product of:
  0.03176567 = sum of:
    0.03176567 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03176567 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.32745665 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Footnote
    Zugl.: Düsseldorf, Univ., Diss., 2009 u.d.T.: Peters, Isabella: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval Rez. in: IWP - Information Wissenschaft & Praxis, 61(2010) Heft 8, S.469-470 (U. Spree): "... Nachdem sich die Rezensentin durch 418 Seiten Text hindurch gelesen hat, bleibt sie unentschieden, wie der auffällige Einsatz langer Zitate (im Durchschnitt drei Zitate, die länger als vier kleingedruckte Zeilen sind, pro Seite) zu bewerten ist, zumal die Zitate nicht selten rein illustrativen Charakter haben bzw. Isabella Peters noch einmal zitiert, was sie bereits in eigenen Worten ausgedrückt hat. Redundanz und Verlängerung der Lesezeit halten sich hier die Waage mit der Möglichkeit, dass sich die Leserin einen unmittelbaren Eindruck von Sprache und Duktus der zitierten Literatur verschaffen kann. Eindeutig unschön ist das Beenden eines Gedankens oder einer Argumentation durch ein Zitat (z. B. S. 170). Im deutschen Original entstehen auf diese Weise die für deutsche wissenschaftliche Qualifikationsarbeiten typischen denglischen Texte. Für alle, die sich für Wissensrepräsentation, Information Retrieval und kollaborative Informationsdienste interessieren, ist "Folksonomies : Indexing and Retrieval in Web 2.0" trotz der angeführten kleinen Mängel zur Lektüre und Anschaffung - wegen seines beinahe enzyklopädischen Charakters auch als Nachschlage- oder Referenzwerk geeignet - unbedingt zu empfehlen. Abschließend möchte ich mich in einem Punkt der Produktinfo von de Gruyter uneingeschränkt anschließen: ein "Grundlagenwerk für Folksonomies".
    RSWK
    Information Retrieval
    Subject
    Information Retrieval
  11. Broughton, V.: Automatic metadata generation : Digital resource description without human intervention (2007) 0.00 
    0.0032587221 = product of:
  0.026069777 = sum of:
    0.026069777 = product of:
      0.052139554 = sum of:
        0.052139554 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052139554 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.112301625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:41:14
  12. Solskinnsbakk, G.; Gulla, J.A.; Haderlein, V.; Myrseth, P.; Cerrato, O.: Quality of hierarchies in ontologies and folksonomies (2012) 0.00 
    0.003248495 = product of:
  0.02598796 = sum of:
    0.02598796 = product of:
      0.05197592 = sum of:
        0.05197592 = weight(_text_:etc in 1034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05197592 = score(doc=1034,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17370372 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 1034, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1034)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Ontologies have been a hot research topic for the recent decade and have been used for many applications such as information integration, semantic search, knowledge management, etc. Manual engineering of ontologies is a costly process and automatic ontology engineering lacks in precision. Folksonomies have recently emerged as another hot research topic and several research efforts have been made to extract lightweight ontologies automatically from folksonomy data. Due to the high cost of manual ontology engineering and the lack of precision in automatic ontology engineering it is important that we are able to evaluate the structure of the ontology. Detection of problems with the suggested ontology at an early stage can, especially for manually engineered ontologies, be cost saving. In this paper we present an approach to evaluate the quality of hierarchical relations in ontologies and folksonomy based structures. The approach is based on constructing shallow semantic representations of the ontology concepts and folksonomy tags. We specify four hypotheses regarding the semantic representations and different quality aspects of the hierarchical relations and perform an evaluation on two different data sets. The results of the evaluation confirm our hypotheses.
  13. Furner, J.: Folksonomies (2009) 0.00 
    0.0032420703 = product of:
  0.025936563 = sum of:
    0.025936563 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025936563 = score(doc=3857,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 3857, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3857)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    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.
  14. Voss, J.: Collaborative thesaurus tagging the Wikipedia way (2006) 0.00 
    0.0024853002 = product of:
  0.019882401 = sum of:
    0.019882401 = product of:
      0.039764803 = sum of:
        0.039764803 = weight(_text_:system in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039764803 = score(doc=620,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.3936941 = fieldWeight in 620, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=620)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    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.
  15. Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval (2008) 0.00 
    0.0024315526 = product of:
  0.019452421 = sum of:
    0.019452421 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019452421 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
  16. Goodrum, A.; Hibbard, C.E.; Fels, C.D.; Woodcock, C.K.: ¬The creation of keysigns : American sign language metadata (2008) 0.00 
    0.0024315526 = product of:
  0.019452421 = sum of:
    0.019452421 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019452421 = score(doc=2272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2272, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2272)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Content
    This paper reports preliminary results from a pilot test of the creation of a folksonomic gestural taxonomy for sign language indexing and retrieval. Skilled sign language interpreters and deaf participants were asked to create sign language metadata or 'Keysigns' that they would assign to classify topics presented by three deaf scientists during a day-log workshop. Although their Keysigns demonstrate a high degree of content conformity, the physical signing itself lacked consistency. Comments made by participants revealed that signed metadata was not a commonly understood concept and that the exercise was cognitively challenging. The paper concludes with suggestions for ways to make the creation of folksonomic Keysign metadata easier from cognitive and physical perspectives.
  17. Moreiro-González, J.-A.; Bolaños-Mejías, C.: Folksonomy indexing from the assignment of free tags to setup subject : a search analysis into the domain of legal history (2018) 0.00 
    0.002026294 = product of:
  0.016210351 = sum of:
    0.016210351 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016210351 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09700725 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032069415 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    The behaviour and lexical quality of the folksonomies is examined by comparing two online social networks: Library-Thing (for books) and Flickr (for photos). We presented a case study that combines quantitative and qualitative elements, singularized by the lexical and functional framework. Our query was made by "Legal History" and by the synonyms "Law History" and "History of Law." We then examined the relevance, consistency and precision of the tags attached to the retrieved documents, in addition to their lexical composition. We identified the difficulties caused by free tagging and some of the folksonomy solutions that have been found to solve them. The results are presented in comparative tables, giving special attention to related tags within each retrieved document. Although the number of ambiguous or inconsistent tags is not very large, these do nevertheless represent the most obvious problem to search and retrieval in folksonomies. Relevance is high when the terms are assigned by especially competent taggers. Even with less expert taggers, ambiguity is often successfully corrected by contextualizing the concepts within related tags. A propinquity to associative and taxonomic lexical semantic knowledge is reached via contextual relationships.
  18. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.00 
    0.0019202204 = product of:
  0.015361764 = sum of:
    0.015361764 = product of:
      0.030723527 = sum of:
        0.030723527 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030723527 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.112301625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    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
  19. Wesch, M.: Information R/evolution (2006) 0.00 
    0.0019009212 = product of:
  0.01520737 = sum of:
    0.01520737 = product of:
      0.03041474 = sum of:
        0.03041474 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03041474 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.112301625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Date
    5. 1.2008 19:22:48
  20. Lee, Y.Y.; Yang, S.Q.: Folksonomies as subject access : a survey of tagging in library online catalogs and discovery layers (2012) 0.00 
    0.0018639751 = product of:
  0.014911801 = sum of:
    0.014911801 = product of:
      0.029823601 = sum of:
        0.029823601 = weight(_text_:system in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029823601 = score(doc=309,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10100432 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032069415 = queryNorm
            0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 22
  • d 5
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 23
  • el 5
  • m 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications