Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Rafferty, P."
  1. Rafferty, P.: Tagging (2018) 0.02
    0.024668258 = product of:
      0.09867303 = sum of:
        0.09867303 = weight(_text_:social in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09867303 = score(doc=4647,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.53416204 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    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.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  2. Rafferty, P.; Hidderley, R.: Flickr and democratic Indexing : dialogic approaches to indexing (2007) 0.02
    0.02114422 = product of:
      0.08457688 = sum of:
        0.08457688 = weight(_text_:social in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08457688 = score(doc=752,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.45785317 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is two-fold: to examine three models of subject indexing (i.e. expert-led indexing, author-generated indexing, and user-orientated indexing); and to compare and contrast two user-orientated indexing approaches (i.e. the theoretically-based Democratic Indexing project, and Flickr, a working system for describing photographs). Design/methodology/approach - The approach to examining Flickr and Democratic Indexing is evaluative. The limitations of Flickr are described and examples are provided. The Democratic Indexing approach, which the authors believe offers a method of marshalling a "free" user-indexed archive to provide useful retrieval functions, is described. Findings - The examination of both Flickr and the Democratic Indexing approach suggests that, despite Shirky's claim of philosophical paradigm shifting for social tagging, there is a residing doubt amongst information professionals that self-organising systems can work without there being some element of control and some form of "representative authority". Originality/value - This paper contributes to the literature of user-based indexing and social tagging.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  3. Rafferty, P.; Murphy, H.: Is there nothing outside the tags? : towards a poststructuralist analysis of social tagging (2015) 0.02
    0.020346032 = product of:
      0.08138413 = sum of:
        0.08138413 = weight(_text_:social in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08138413 = score(doc=1792,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.44056937 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of the research is to explore relationships between social tagging and key poststructuralist principles; to devise and construct an analytical framework through which key poststructuralist principles are converted into workable research questions and applied to analyse Librarything tags, and to assess the validity of performing such an analysis. The research hypothesis is that tagging represents an imperfect analogy for the poststructuralist project Design/methodology/approach Tags from LibraryThing and from a library OPAC were compared and constrasted with Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and publishers' descriptions. Research questions derived from poststructuralism, asked whether tags destabilise meaning, whether and how far the death of the author is expressed in tags, and whether tags deconstruct LCSH. Findings Tags can temporarily destabilise meaning by obfuscating the structure of a word. Meaning is destabilised, perhaps only momentarily, and then it is recreated; it might resemble the original meaning, or it may not, however any attempt to make tags useful or functional necessarily imposes some form of structure. The analysis indicates that in tagging, the author, if not dead, is ignored. Authoritative interpretations are not pervasively mimicked in the tags. In relation to LCSH, tagging decentres the dominant view, but neither exposes nor judges it. Nor does tagging achieve the final stage of the deconstructive process, showing the dominant view to be a constructed reality. Originality/value This is one of very few studies to have attempted a critical theoretical approach to social tagging. It offers a novel methodological approach to undertaking analysis based on poststructuralist theory.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  4. Hidderley, R.; Rafferty, P.: Flickr and democratic indexing : disciplining desire lines (2006) 0.02
    0.020141546 = product of:
      0.08056618 = sum of:
        0.08056618 = weight(_text_:social in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08056618 = score(doc=119,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.43614143 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    In this paper, we consider three models of subject indexing, and compare and contrast two indexing approaches, the theoretically based democratic indexing project, and Flickr, a working system for describing photographs. We argue that, despite Shirky's (2005) claim of philosophical paradigm shifting for social tagging, there is a residing doubt amongst information professionals that self-organising systems can work without there being some element of control and some form of 'representative authority'.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  5. Rafferty, P.: Genre as knowledge organization (2022) 0.01
    0.014386819 = product of:
      0.057547275 = sum of:
        0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 1093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057547275 = score(doc=1093,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 1093, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1093)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This article examines genre as knowledge organization. Genres are fluid and historically changing categories, and there are different views about the scope and membership of specific genres. The literature generally agrees that genre is a matter of discrimination and taxonomy, and that it is concerned with organising things into recognisable classes, existing as part of the relationship between texts and readers. Genre can be thought of as a sorting mechanism, and genres are not only a matter of codes and conventions but also call into play systems of use and social institutions. This article explores the history of genre analysis across a broad range of disciplines, including literary studies, rhetorical and social action studies, and English for academic and professional purposes. It considers genre theory as a framework for librarianship and knowledge organization and explores the use of genre within librarianship and knowledge organization. Finally, the article discusses the Library of Congress Genre/Forms Terms for Library and Archival Materials which, itself an evolving and changing standard, offers a step towards standardisation regarding genre terms and the scope of genre categories.
  6. Rafferty, P.: Informative tagging of images : the importance of modality in mnterpretation (2011) 0.01
    0.010173016 = product of:
      0.040692065 = sum of:
        0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 4612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040692065 = score(doc=4612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 4612, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4612)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The term "tagging" is widely used for the assigning of terms to information objects in user-driven websites, although a cursory examination of such websites suggests that the communicative functions undertaken by taggers are not always driven by concerns about inter-subjective informative communication. At the heart of the debate about social indexing are issues relating to meaning and interpretation. Even where the intention is to assign informative tags, there is an issue about the relationship between the modality of an information object and its subsequent interpretation in historical time. This paper tests a model of image modality using four test images, which are interpreted and tagged by a group of distance learner students at the Department of Information Studies, Aberystwyth University. The results are described, and the implications are discussed. Overall, this limited exercise suggests that the modality model might be of some use in categorizing images within an image IR system. The exercise also suggests that leaving annotation and tagging entirely to users could lead to information loss over time. Finally, the exercise suggests that developing a retrieval tool using genre and the intertextual nature of multimedia objects might lead to the construction of rich, knowledge based systems.
  7. Ransom, N.; Rafferty, P.: Facets of user-assigned tags and their effectiveness in image retrieval (2011) 0.01
    0.010173016 = product of:
      0.040692065 = sum of:
        0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040692065 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Theme
    Social tagging
  8. Rafferty, P.: Disrupting the metanarrative : a little history of image indexing and retrieval (2019) 0.01
    0.009149151 = product of:
      0.036596604 = sum of:
        0.036596604 = product of:
          0.07319321 = sum of:
            0.07319321 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07319321 = score(doc=4998,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.3495657 = fieldWeight in 4998, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4998)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The aims of this paper are twofold: to offer a short history of image retrieval, and secondly and relatedly, to critique the metanarrative of modernity emerging in the literature of knowledge organization and information retrieval. The paper re-views the emerging grand narrative in relation to knowledge or-ganization and information retrieval that sees them as specific aspects of modernity and technological efficiency. This grand narrative is particularly interested in technology even when it is contextualising technology. A more nuanced history emerges when the focus moves to the representation, organization, and retrieval of images. This literature foregrounds not only the tech-nology but also issues relating to definitions of the "subject" and issues relating to interpretation and meaning-making.
  9. Rafferty, P.: ¬The representation of knowledge in library classification schemes (2001) 0.01
    0.007842129 = product of:
      0.031368516 = sum of:
        0.031368516 = product of:
          0.06273703 = sum of:
            0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06273703 = score(doc=640,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 640, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=640)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This article explores the representation of knowledge through the discursive practice of 'general' or 'universal' classification schemes. These classification schemes were constructed within a philosophical framework which viewed `man' as the central focus in the universe, which believed in progress through science and research, and which privileged written documentation over other forms. All major classification schemes are built on clearly identifiable systems of knowledge, and all classification schemes, as discursive formations, regulate the ways in which knowledge is made accessible. Of particular interest in determining how knowledge is represented in classification schemes are the following: - Main classes: classification theorists have attempted to 'discipline epistemology' in the sense of imposing main class structures with the view to simplifying access to knowledge in documents for library users. - Notational language: a number of classification theorists were particularly interested in the establishment of symbolic languages through notation. The article considers these aspects of classification theory in relation to: the Dewey Decimal Classification scheme; Otlet and La Fontaine's Universal Bibliographic Classification and the International Institute of Bibliography; Henry Evelyn Bliss's Bibliographic Classification; and S.R. Ranganathan's Colon Classification.
  10. Vernitski, A.; Rafferty, P.: Approaches to fiction retrieval research : from theory to practice? (2011) 0.01
    0.007842129 = product of:
      0.031368516 = sum of:
        0.031368516 = product of:
          0.06273703 = sum of:
            0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06273703 = score(doc=4720,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 4720, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4720)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This chapter considers fiction retrieval research and initiatives, providing an overview of some of the approaches that have been developed. In particular, it describes two recent approaches to fiction retrieval that have made use of theoretical concepts drawn from literary theory. Fiction is an interesting information domain because it includes documents that serve two purposes, which are reading for pleasure and scholarly study (Beghtol, 1994), but fiction retrieval has not always focused on both aspects. In the 19th century, the approach was to treat fiction from a knowledge perspective within general classification schemes. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) contain classes for literature, with the main subdivision in each case being the language in which it is written. Further subdivision is possible based on literary form, historical period or the works of an individual author (Riesthuis, 1997).
  11. Inskip, C.; MacFarlane, A.; Rafferty, P.: Organising music for movies (2010) 0.01
    0.0065351077 = product of:
      0.026140431 = sum of:
        0.026140431 = product of:
          0.052280862 = sum of:
            0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.052280862 = score(doc=3941,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 3941, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3941)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine and discuss the classification of commercial popular music when large digital collections are organised for use in films. Design/methodology/approach - A range of systems are investigated and their organization is discussed, focusing on an analysis of the metadata used by the systems and choices given to the end-user to construct a query. The indexing of the music is compared with a check-list of music facets which has been derived from recent musicological literature on semiotic analysis of popular music. These facets include aspects of communication, cultural and musical expression, codes and competences. Findings - In addition to bibliographic detail, descriptive metadata are used to organise music in these systems. Genre, subject and mood are used widely; some musical facets also appear. The extent to which attempts are being made to reflect these facets in the organization of these systems is discussed. A number of recommendations are made which may help to improve this process. Originality/value - The paper discusses an area of creative music search which has not previously been investigated in any depth and makes recommendations based on findings and the literature which may be used in the development of commercial systems as well as making a contribution to the literature.
  12. Rafferty, P.: Genette, intertextuality, and knowledge organization (2014) 0.00
    0.004707306 = product of:
      0.018829225 = sum of:
        0.018829225 = product of:
          0.03765845 = sum of:
            0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 1445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03765845 = score(doc=1445,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046325076 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1445, 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=1445)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik