Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03184658 = product of:
  0.12738632 = sum of:
    0.12738632 = weight(_text_:social in 3561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12738632 = score(doc=3561,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.68960017 = fieldWeight in 3561, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3561)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An increasingly difficult challenge in social tagging applications is negotiating the number of existing tags. This article examines the use of facets to facilitate the efficient organization and browsing of tags into manageable and distinct categories. Current and proposed methodologies for the application of facets in social tagging applications are evaluated. Results of this analysis indicate that these methodologies provide insufficient guidelines for the choice, evaluation, and maintenance of the facets. Suggestions are made to guide the design of a more rigorous methodology for the application of facets to social tagging applications.

Theme

Social tagging

0.028773637 = product of:
  0.11509455 = sum of:
    0.11509455 = weight(_text_:social in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11509455 = score(doc=1806,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.6230592 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Social tagging

0.024668258 = product of:
  0.09867303 = sum of:
    0.09867303 = weight(_text_:social in 406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09867303 = score(doc=406,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.53416204 = fieldWeight in 406, 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=406)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

Theme

Social tagging

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

0.02301891 = product of:
  0.09207564 = sum of:
    0.09207564 = weight(_text_:social in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09207564 = score(doc=343,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.49844736 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

Theme

Social tagging

0.020346032 = product of:
  0.08138413 = sum of:
    0.08138413 = weight(_text_:social in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08138413 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.44056937 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Social tagging

0.020141546 = product of:
  0.08056618 = sum of:
    0.08056618 = weight(_text_:social in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08056618 = score(doc=828,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.43614143 = fieldWeight in 828, 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=828)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Social tagging

0.017264182 = product of:
  0.06905673 = sum of:
    0.06905673 = weight(_text_:social in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06905673 = score(doc=4907,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3738355 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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).

0.0142422225 = product of:
  0.05696889 = sum of:
    0.05696889 = weight(_text_:social in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05696889 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.01220762 = product of:
  0.04883048 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=309,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 309, 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=309)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Social tagging

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 4069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=4069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 4069, 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=4069)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Social tagging systems, known as "folksonomies," represent an important part of web resource discovery as they enable free and unrestricted browsing through information space. Folksonomies consisting of subject designators (tags) assigned by users, however, have one important drawback: they do not express semantic relationships, either hierarchical or associative, between tags. As a consequence, the use of tags to browse information resources requires moving from one resource to another, based on coincidence and not on the pre-established meaningful or logical connections that may exist between related resources. We suggest that the semantic structure of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) may be used in complementing and supporting tag-based browsing. In this work, two specific questions were investigated: 1) Are terms used as tags in folksonomies included in the UDC?; and, 2) Which facets of UDC match the characteristics of documents or information objects that are tagged in folksonomies? A collection of the most popular tags from Amazon, LibraryThing, Delicious, and 43Things was investigated. The universal nature of UDC was examined through the universality of topics and facets covering diverse human interests which are at the same time interconnected and form a rich and intricate semantic structure. The results suggest that UDC-supported folksonomies could be implemented in resource discovery, in particular in library portals and catalogues.

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 4640, 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=4640)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.008138414 = product of:
  0.032553654 = sum of:
    0.032553654 = weight(_text_:social in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032553654 = score(doc=2671,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 2671, 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=2671)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Emotion and sentiment in social and expressive media"

0.0065351077 = product of:
  0.026140431 = sum of:
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=1034,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 1034, 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=1034)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ontologies have been a hot research topic for the recent decade and have been used for many applications such as information integration, semantic search, knowledge management, etc. Manual engineering of ontologies is a costly process and automatic ontology engineering lacks in precision. Folksonomies have recently emerged as another hot research topic and several research efforts have been made to extract lightweight ontologies automatically from folksonomy data. Due to the high cost of manual ontology engineering and the lack of precision in automatic ontology engineering it is important that we are able to evaluate the structure of the ontology. Detection of problems with the suggested ontology at an early stage can, especially for manually engineered ontologies, be cost saving. In this paper we present an approach to evaluate the quality of hierarchical relations in ontologies and folksonomy based structures. The approach is based on constructing shallow semantic representations of the ontology concepts and folksonomy tags. We specify four hypotheses regarding the semantic representations and different quality aspects of the hierarchical relations and perform an evaluation on two different data sets. The results of the evaluation confirm our hypotheses.