Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04361048 = product of:
  0.08722096 = sum of:
    0.08722096 = sum of:
      0.04478263 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04478263 = score(doc=2109,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = 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)
      0.04243833 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04243833 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052204985 = 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)

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

0.021219164 = product of:
  0.04243833 = sum of:
    0.04243833 = product of:
      0.08487666 = sum of:
        0.08487666 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08487666 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.01615954 = product of:
  0.03231908 = sum of:
    0.03231908 = product of:
      0.06463816 = sum of:
        0.06463816 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06463816 = score(doc=865,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.015997129 = product of:
  0.031994257 = sum of:
    0.031994257 = product of:
      0.063988514 = sum of:
        0.063988514 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063988514 = score(doc=406,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.01583305 = product of:
  0.0316661 = sum of:
    0.0316661 = product of:
      0.0633322 = sum of:
        0.0633322 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0633322 = score(doc=4907,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.012927632 = product of:
  0.025855264 = sum of:
    0.025855264 = product of:
      0.051710527 = sum of:
        0.051710527 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051710527 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.012503512 = product of:
  0.025007024 = sum of:
    0.025007024 = product of:
      0.05001405 = sum of:
        0.05001405 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05001405 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.012377845 = product of:
  0.02475569 = sum of:
    0.02475569 = product of:
      0.04951138 = sum of:
        0.04951138 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04951138 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

5. 1.2008 19:22:48

0.010555367 = product of:
  0.021110734 = sum of:
    0.021110734 = product of:
      0.042221468 = sum of:
        0.042221468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042221468 = score(doc=3857,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.010555367 = product of:
  0.021110734 = sum of:
    0.021110734 = product of:
      0.042221468 = sum of:
        0.042221468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042221468 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.009329714 = product of:
  0.018659428 = sum of:
    0.018659428 = product of:
      0.037318856 = sum of:
        0.037318856 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037318856 = score(doc=289,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.008841318 = product of:
  0.017682636 = sum of:
    0.017682636 = product of:
      0.035365272 = sum of:
        0.035365272 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035365272 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.007916525 = product of:
  0.01583305 = sum of:
    0.01583305 = product of:
      0.0316661 = sum of:
        0.0316661 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0316661 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.007916525 = product of:
  0.01583305 = sum of:
    0.01583305 = product of:
      0.0316661 = sum of:
        0.0316661 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0316661 = score(doc=2272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0074637714 = product of:
  0.014927543 = sum of:
    0.014927543 = product of:
      0.029855086 = sum of:
        0.029855086 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029855086 = score(doc=3616,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0070730546 = product of:
  0.014146109 = sum of:
    0.014146109 = product of:
      0.028292218 = sum of:
        0.028292218 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028292218 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18281296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.0065971045 = product of:
  0.013194209 = sum of:
    0.013194209 = product of:
      0.026388418 = sum of:
        0.026388418 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026388418 = score(doc=764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0065971045 = product of:
  0.013194209 = sum of:
    0.013194209 = product of:
      0.026388418 = sum of:
        0.026388418 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026388418 = score(doc=4350,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Theme

Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval

0.0065971045 = product of:
  0.013194209 = sum of:
    0.013194209 = product of:
      0.026388418 = sum of:
        0.026388418 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026388418 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15791564 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052204985 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.