Search (26 results, page 1 of 2)

0.03754639 = product of:
  0.07509278 = sum of:
    0.07509278 = sum of:
      0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03267146 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = 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)
      0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042421322 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = 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

0.03128866 = product of:
  0.06257732 = sum of:
    0.06257732 = sum of:
      0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027226217 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = 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)
      0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0353511 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = 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)

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

0.021210661 = product of:
  0.042421322 = sum of:
    0.042421322 = product of:
      0.084842645 = sum of:
        0.084842645 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084842645 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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

0.016672583 = product of:
  0.033345167 = sum of:
    0.033345167 = product of:
      0.06669033 = sum of:
        0.06669033 = weight(_text_:systems in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06669033 = score(doc=865,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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)
  0.5 = 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.

0.016505018 = product of:
  0.033010036 = sum of:
    0.033010036 = product of:
      0.06602007 = sum of:
        0.06602007 = weight(_text_:systems in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06602007 = score(doc=4553,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.015401474 = product of:
  0.030802948 = sum of:
    0.030802948 = product of:
      0.061605897 = sum of:
        0.061605897 = weight(_text_:systems in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061605897 = score(doc=620,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.013613109 = product of:
  0.027226217 = sum of:
    0.027226217 = product of:
      0.054452434 = sum of:
        0.054452434 = weight(_text_:systems in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054452434 = score(doc=764,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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)
  0.5 = 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.

0.013476291 = product of:
  0.026952581 = sum of:
    0.026952581 = product of:
      0.053905163 = sum of:
        0.053905163 = weight(_text_:systems in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053905163 = score(doc=251,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 251, 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=251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Catalogers have always had to balance adherence to cataloging rules and authority files with creating cataloging that is current and relevant to users. That dilemma has been complicated in new ways because of user demands in the world of Web 2.0. Standardized cataloging is crucial for communication between computer systems, but patrons now have an expectation of social interaction on the Internet, as evidenced by the popularity of folksonomy. After a description of traditional subject cataloging and folksonomy, this article discusses several institutions where subject cataloging is still used, but where patron interaction is also encouraged. User-generated tags can coexist with controlled vocabulary such as subject headings.

0.013476291 = product of:
  0.026952581 = sum of:
    0.026952581 = product of:
      0.053905163 = sum of:
        0.053905163 = weight(_text_:systems in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053905163 = score(doc=4647,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.012498502 = product of:
  0.024997003 = sum of:
    0.024997003 = product of:
      0.049994007 = sum of:
        0.049994007 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049994007 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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

0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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

0.010890487 = product of:
  0.021780973 = sum of:
    0.021780973 = product of:
      0.043561947 = sum of:
        0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 3857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043561947 = score(doc=3857,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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)
  0.5 = 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.

0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=2939,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 3540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=3540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 3540, 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=3540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO conference, Rome, 23-26 February 2010, ed. Claudio Gnoli, Indeks, Frankfurt M

0.0094314385 = product of:
  0.018862877 = sum of:
    0.018862877 = product of:
      0.037725754 = sum of:
        0.037725754 = weight(_text_:systems in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037725754 = score(doc=2671,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=4907,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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)
  0.5 = 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).

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=309,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 309, 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=309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.007700737 = product of:
  0.015401474 = sum of:
    0.015401474 = product of:
      0.030802948 = sum of:
        0.030802948 = weight(_text_:systems in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030802948 = score(doc=705,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0070702205 = product of:
  0.014140441 = sum of:
    0.014140441 = product of:
      0.028280882 = sum of:
        0.028280882 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028280882 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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