Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.042272035 = product of:
  0.105680086 = sum of:
    0.09013632 = weight(_text_:social in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09013632 = score(doc=2648,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.49257156 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
    0.015543767 = product of:
      0.031087535 = sum of:
        0.031087535 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031087535 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, 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=2648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The growing predominance of social semantics in the form of tagging presents the metadata community with both opportunities and challenges as for leveraging this new form of information content representation and for retrieval. One key challenge is the absence of contextual information associated with these tags. This paper presents an experiment working with Flickr tags as an example of utilizing social semantics sources for enriching subject metadata. The procedure included four steps: 1) Collecting a sample of Flickr tags, 2) Calculating cooccurrences between tags through mutual information, 3) Tracing contextual information of tag pairs via Google search results, 4) Applying natural language processing and machine learning techniques to extract semantic relations between tags. The experiment helped us to build a context sentence collection from the Google search results, which was then processed by natural language processing and machine learning algorithms. This new approach achieved a reasonably good rate of accuracy in assigning semantic relations to tag pairs. This paper also explores the implications of this approach for using social semantics to enrich subject metadata.

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

Theme

Social tagging

0.039420143 = product of:
  0.09855036 = sum of:
    0.032248147 = weight(_text_:social in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032248147 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.06630221 = sum of:
      0.04143218 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04143218 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20741826 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04589033 = queryNorm
          0.19975184 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.024870027 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024870027 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04589033 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.

Date

12. 9.2004 17:22:35

0.030143319 = product of:
  0.075358294 = sum of:
    0.026986076 = weight(_text_:technology in 2519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026986076 = score(doc=2519,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2519, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2519)
    0.04837222 = weight(_text_:social in 2519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04837222 = score(doc=2519,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 2519, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2519)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Workforce development is a multidisciplinary domain in which policy, laws and regulations, social services, training and education, and information technology and systems are heavily involved. It is essential to have a semantic base accepted by the workforce development community for knowledge sharing and exchange. This paper describes how such a semantic base-the Workforce Open Knowledge Exchange (WOKE) Ontology-was built by using the adaptive modeling approach. The focus of this paper is to address questions such as how ontology designers should extract and model concepts obtained from different sources and what methodologies are useful along the steps of ontology development. The paper proposes a methodology framework "adaptive modeling" and explains the methodology through examples and some lessons learned from the process of developing the WOKE ontology.

0.025596175 = product of:
  0.12798087 = sum of:
    0.12798087 = weight(_text_:social in 2269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12798087 = score(doc=2269,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.69938225 = fieldWeight in 2269, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2269)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Social semantics is more than just tags or vocabularies. It involves the users who contribute the tags, the perceptions of the world, and intentions that the tags are created for. Whilst social semantics is a valuable, massive data source for developing new knowledge systems or validating existing ones, there are also pitfalls and uncertainties. The epistemological analysis presented in this paper is an attempt to explain the differences and connections between social and controlled semantics from the perspective of knowledge theory. The epistemological connection between social and controlled semantics is particularly important: empirical knowledge can provide data source for testing the rational knowledge and rational knowledge can provide reliability and predictability. Such connection will have significant implications for future research on social and controlled semantics.

Theme

Social tagging

0.0074610077 = product of:
  0.03730504 = sum of:
    0.03730504 = product of:
      0.07461008 = sum of:
        0.07461008 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07461008 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3895, 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=3895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

24. 8.2005 19:20:22

0.0063606794 = product of:
  0.031803396 = sum of:
    0.031803396 = weight(_text_:technology in 3325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031803396 = score(doc=3325,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 3325, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3325)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

It is important for education in computer science and information systems to keep up to date with the latest development in technology. With the rapid development of the Internet and the Web, many schools have included Internet-related technologies, such as Web search engines and e-commerce, as part of their curricula. Previous research has shown that it is effective to use search engine development tools to facilitate students' learning. However, the effectiveness of these tools in the classroom has not been evaluated. In this article, we review the design of three search engine development tools, SpidersRUs, Greenstone, and Alkaline, followed by an evaluation study that compared the three tools in the classroom. In the study, 33 students were divided into 13 groups and each group used the three tools to develop three independent search engines in a class project. Our evaluation results showed that SpidersRUs performed better than the two other tools in overall satisfaction and the level of knowledge gained in their learning experience when using the tools for a class project on Internet applications development.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.2, S.288-299

0.005397215 = product of:
  0.026986076 = sum of:
    0.026986076 = weight(_text_:technology in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026986076 = score(doc=3589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3589, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3589)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information technology and libraries. 17(1998) no.3, S.149-156

0.005397215 = product of:
  0.026986076 = sum of:
    0.026986076 = weight(_text_:technology in 3818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026986076 = score(doc=3818,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3818, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3818)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Subject retrieval in a networked environment: Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting held in Dublin, OH, 14-16 August 2001 and sponsored by the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section, the IFLA Information Technology Section and OCLC. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.005397215 = product of:
  0.026986076 = sum of:
    0.026986076 = weight(_text_:technology in 1880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026986076 = score(doc=1880,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 1880, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1880)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.8, S.1347-1359

0.0044976794 = product of:
  0.022488397 = sum of:
    0.022488397 = weight(_text_:technology in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022488397 = score(doc=4926,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.2, S.280-292

0.0044976794 = product of:
  0.022488397 = sum of:
    0.022488397 = weight(_text_:technology in 5054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022488397 = score(doc=5054,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 5054, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5054)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.5, S.671-683

0.0044976794 = product of:
  0.022488397 = sum of:
    0.022488397 = weight(_text_:technology in 1253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022488397 = score(doc=1253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 1253, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1253)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.964-983