Search (149 results, page 2 of 8)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Tschetschonig, K.; Ladengruber, R.; Hampel, T.; Schulte, J.: Kollaborative Tagging-Systeme im Electronic Commerce (2008) 0.03 
    0.03488618 = product of:
  0.13954473 = sum of:
    0.13954473 = weight(_text_:social in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13954473 = score(doc=2891,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.75541914 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Social-Tagging-Systeme bieten eine Vielzahl an Vorteilen gegenüber traditionellen und zurzeit eingesetzten Systemen und werden besonders in nicht-kommerziellen Web-2.0-Anwendungen erfolgreich verwendet. Diese Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit den Vor- und Nachteilen von Social Tagging für kollaborative Systeme des Electronic Commerce und stellt einige Beispiele aus der Praxis vor. Es gibt nur wenige Anwendungen aus dem Bereich des Electronic Commerce, die Social Tagging erfolgreich als kritischen Teil ihrer Systeme einsetzen. Deshalb wird das Potenzial von Tagging-Systemen beleuchtet, um eine fundierte Basis für neue Entwicklungen im Geschäftsbereich zu schaffen.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  2. Farkas, M.G.: Social software in libraries : building collaboration, communication, and community online (2007) 0.03 
    0.034528363 = product of:
  0.13811345 = sum of:
    0.13811345 = weight(_text_:social in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13811345 = score(doc=2364,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.747671 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Inhalt: What is social software? -- Blogs -- Blogs in libraries : practical applications -- RSS -- Wikis -- Online communities -- Social networking -- Social bookmarking and collaborative filtering -- Tools for synchronous online reference -- The mobile revolution -- Podcasting -- Screencasting and vodcasting -- Gaming -- What will work @ your library -- Keeping up : a primer -- Future trends in social software.
    LCSH
    Online social networks
    Subject
    Online social networks
    Theme
    Social tagging
  3. Derntl, M.; Hampel, T.; Motschnig, R.; Pitner, T.: Social Tagging und Inclusive Universal Access (2008) 0.03 
    0.034528363 = product of:
  0.13811345 = sum of:
    0.13811345 = weight(_text_:social in 2864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13811345 = score(doc=2864,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.747671 = fieldWeight in 2864, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2864)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Der vorliegende Artikel beleuchtet und bewertet Social Tagging als aktuelles Phänomen des Web 2.0 im Kontext bekannter Techniken der semantischen Datenorganisation. Tagging wird in einen Raum verwandter Ordnungs- und Strukturierungsansätze eingeordnet, um die fundamentalen Grundlagen des Social Tagging zu identifizieren und zuzuweisen. Dabei wird Tagging anhand des Inclusive Universal Access Paradigmas bewertet, das technische als auch menschlich-soziale Kriterien für die inklusive und barrierefreie Bereitstellung und Nutzung von Diensten definiert. Anhand dieser Bewertung werden fundamentale Prinzipien des "Inclusive Social Tagging" hergeleitet, die der Charakterisierung und Bewertung gängiger Tagging-Funktionalitäten in verbreiteten Web-2.0-Diensten dienen. Aus der Bewertung werden insbesondere Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten von Social Tagging und unterstützenden Diensten erkennbar.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  4. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.03 
    0.033829853 = product of:
  0.067659706 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 3601, 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=3601)
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3601, 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=3601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Theme
    Social tagging
  5. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.03 
    0.033829853 = product of:
  0.067659706 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 3602, 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=3602)
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3602, 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=3602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Theme
    Social tagging
  6. Simon, J.: Interdisciplinary knowledge creation : using wikis in science (2006) 0.03 
    0.03341625 = product of:
  0.0668325 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 2516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=2516,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 2516, 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=2516)
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=2516,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 2516, 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=2516)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article focuses on two aspects of knowledge generation. First, I want to explore how new knowledge is created in interdisciplinary discourses and, second, how this process might be mediated and promoted by the use of wikis. I suggest that it is the noise coming to life in (ex)changes of perspectives that enables the creation of new knowledge. In section 1-4, I am going to examine how the concepts of noise from the mathematical theory of communication (Shannon 1948) on the one hand and theories of organizational knowledge creation (cf. Nonaka 1994) on the other might help to understand the process of interdisciplinary knowledge creation. In section 5 I am going to explore the role wiki technologies can play in supporting interdisciplinary collaborations. This section is influenced by own experiences in a wiki-based interdisciplinary collaboration. It seems that even though certain features of wiki technology make it an excellent tool to externalize and combine individual knowledge leaving room for noise and at the same time documenting this process, the full benefit of wikis can only be obtained if they are embedded into a broader communication context.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  7. Hunter, J.: Collaborative semantic tagging and annotation systems (2009) 0.03 
    0.032553654 = product of:
  0.13021462 = sum of:
    0.13021462 = weight(_text_:social in 7382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13021462 = score(doc=7382,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.704911 = fieldWeight in 7382, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7382)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Theme
    Social tagging
  8. Hotho, A.; Jäschke, R.; Benz, D.; Grahl, M.; Krause, B.; Schmitz, C.; Stumme, G.: Social Bookmarking am Beispiel BibSonomy (2009) 0.03 
    0.032553654 = product of:
  0.13021462 = sum of:
    0.13021462 = weight(_text_:social in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13021462 = score(doc=4873,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.704911 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    BibSonomy ist ein kooperatives Verschlagwortungssystem (Social Bookmarking System), betrieben vom Fachgebiet Wissensverarbeitung der Universität Kassel. Es erlaubt das Speichern und Organisieren von Web-Lesezeichen und Metadaten für wissenschaftliche Publikationen. In diesem Beitrag beschreiben wir die von BibSonomy bereitgestellte Funktionalität, die dahinter stehende Architektur sowie das zugrunde liegende Datenmodell. Ferner erläutern wir Anwendungsbeispiele und gehen auf Methoden zur Analyse der in BibSonomy und ähnlichen Systemen enthaltenen Daten ein.
    Source
    Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini
    Theme
    Social tagging
  9. Qin, J.: Controlled semantics versus social semantics : an epistemological analysis (2008) 0.03 
    0.032298326 = product of:
  0.1291933 = sum of:
    0.1291933 = weight(_text_:social in 2269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1291933 = score(doc=2269,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  10. Heckner, M.: Tagging, rating, posting : studying forms of user contribution for web-based information management and information retrieval (2009) 0.03 
    0.0321699 = product of:
  0.1286796 = sum of:
    0.1286796 = weight(_text_:social in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1286796 = score(doc=2931,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.69660133 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Die Entstehung von Social Software ermöglicht es Nutzern, in großem Umfang im Netz zu publizieren. Bisher liegen aber nur wenige empirische Befunde zu funktionalen Eigenschaften sowie Qualitätsaspekten von Nutzerbeiträgen im Kontext von Informationsmanagement und Information Retrieval vor. Diese Arbeit diskutiert grundlegende Partizipationsformen, präsentiert empirische Studien über Social Tagging, Blogbeiträge sowie Relevanzbeurteilungen und entwickelt Design und Implementierung einer "sozialen" Informationsarchitektur für ein partizipatives Onlinehilfesystem.
    Content
    The Web of User Contribution - Foundations and Principles of the Social Web - Social Tagging - Rating and Filtering of Digital Resources Empirical Analysisof User Contributions - The Functional and Linguistic Structure of Tags - A Comparative Analysis of Tags for Different Digital Resource Types - Exploring Relevance Assessments in Social IR Systems - Exploring User Contribution Within a Higher Education Scenario - Summary of Empirical Results and Implications for Designing Social Information Systems User Contribution for a Participative Information System - Social Information Architecture for an Online Help System
    RSWK
    Social Tagging / Filter / Web log / World Wide Web 2.0
    Subject
    Social Tagging / Filter / Web log / World Wide Web 2.0
    Theme
    Social tagging
  11. Social tagging in a linked data environment. Edited by Diane Rasmussen Pennington and Louise F. Spiteri. London, UK: Facet Publishing, 2018. 240 pp. £74.95 (paperback). (ISBN 9781783303380) (2019) 0.03 
    0.0321699 = product of:
  0.1286796 = sum of:
    0.1286796 = weight(_text_:social in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1286796 = score(doc=101,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.69660133 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Social tagging, hashtags, and geotags are used across a variety of platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, WordPress, Instagram) in different countries and cultures. This book, representing researchers and practitioners across different information professions, explores how social tags can link content across a variety of environments. Most studies of social tagging have tended to focus on applications like library catalogs, blogs, and social bookmarking sites. This book, in setting out a theoretical background and the use of a series of case studies, explores the role of hashtags as a form of linked data?without the complex implementation of RDF and other Semantic Web technologies.
    LCSH
    Social media
    RSWK
    Linked Data / Social Tagging
    Subject
    Social media
    Linked Data / Social Tagging
    Theme
    Social tagging
  12. Marchitelli, A.; Piazzini, T.: OPAC, SOPAC e social networking : cataloghi di biblioteca 2.0? (2008) 0.03 
    0.03184658 = product of:
  0.12738632 = sum of:
    0.12738632 = weight(_text_:social in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12738632 = score(doc=3862,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.68960017 = fieldWeight in 3862, 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=3862)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In this article are compared traditional OPAC systems, enriched OPAC, social OPAC and social cataloguing systems.the aim is to underline new theoretical trends and to offer a taxonomic outline of such tools, according to the interaction level granted to users and to the chance to manage user's generated contents in the point of view of the application of web 2.0 tendecies to libraries, in the library 2.0. At the end, a brief review of softwares, both open source and not, that seem promising for this future application.
    Footnote
    Übers. d. Titels: OPAC, SOPAC and social networking: catalogues of Library 2.0?
    Theme
    Social tagging
  13. Abbas, J.: In the margins : reflections on scribbles (2007) 0.03 
    0.03184658 = product of:
  0.12738632 = sum of:
    0.12738632 = weight(_text_:social in 659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12738632 = score(doc=659,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.68960017 = fieldWeight in 659, 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=659)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Marginalia or 'scribbling in the margins' is a means for readers to add a more in-depth level of granularity and subject representation to digital documents such as those present in social sharing environments like Flickr and del.icio.us. Social classification and social sharing sites development of user-defined descriptors or tags is discussed in the context of knowledge organization. With this position paper I present a rationale for the use of the resulting folksonomies and tag clouds being developed in these social sharing communities as a rich source of information about our users and their natural organization processes. The knowledge organization community needs to critically examine our understandings of these emerging classificatory schema and determine how best to adapt, augment, revitalize existing knowledge organization structures.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  14. Schiefner, M.: Social Tagging in der universitären Lehre (2008) 0.03 
    0.03184658 = product of:
  0.12738632 = sum of:
    0.12738632 = weight(_text_:social in 2887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12738632 = score(doc=2887,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.68960017 = fieldWeight in 2887, 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=2887)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    "Social Tagging" bezeichnet das gemeinsame Verwalten und Verschlagworten von Ressourcen und wird vor allem durch Dienste wie del.icio.us oder bibsonomy immer beliebter. Auch in Blogs wird mittlerweile getaggt. Der folgende Beitrag soll die Frage klären: Können Prozesse wie "wisdom of the crowd" und die Folksonomy mit strukturiert und hierarchisch arbeitenden Hochschulen in Verbindung gebracht werden? Obwohl Tagging im Kern verschiedene Dienste und Aufgaben an Hochschulen betrifft, bleibt die Frage bislang unbeantwortet, ob und wie dies an Hochschulen, vor allem im Prozess des Lehrens und Lernens integriert und nutzbar gemacht werden kann.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  15. Blank, M.; Bopp, T.; Hampel, T.; Schulte, J.: Social Tagging = Soziale Suche? (2008) 0.03 
    0.03184658 = product of:
  0.12738632 = sum of:
    0.12738632 = weight(_text_:social in 2888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12738632 = score(doc=2888,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.68960017 = fieldWeight in 2888, 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=2888)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Der effiziente Zugang zu Informationen und Wissen spielt in allen Bereichen unserer heutigen Informationsgesellschaft eine Schlüsselrolle. Aufgrund der immer stärker zunehmenden digitalen Informationsflut ist es schwieriger denn je, aus all den zur Verfügung stehenden Ressourcen gerade die interessanten und benötigten Quellen herauszufiltern. Aus diesem Grund gehört eine Suchfunktion zur Grund( raussetzung von Informationssystemen verschiedenster Art. Dieser Artikel he schreibt die Einbettung von Social Tagging in kooperative Informationssysteme und zeigt verschiedene Synergieeffekte auf, die bei der Verzahnung einer klassi schen Suche im Zusammenspiel mit Tagging entstehen.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  16. Spiteri, L.F.: Incorporating facets into social tagging applications : an analysis of current trends (2010) 0.03 
    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
  17. Yi, K.: ¬A semantic similarity approach to predicting Library of Congress subject headings for social tags (2010) 0.03 
    0.03051905 = product of:
  0.1220762 = sum of:
    0.1220762 = weight(_text_:social in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1220762 = score(doc=3707,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.66085404 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Social tagging or collaborative tagging has become a new trend in the organization, management, and discovery of digital information. The rapid growth of shared information mostly controlled by social tags poses a new challenge for social tag-based information organization and retrieval. A plausible approach for this challenge is linking social tags to a controlled vocabulary. As an introductory step for this approach, this study investigates ways of predicting relevant subject headings for resources from social tags assigned to the resources. The prediction of subject headings was measured by five different similarity measures: tf-idf, cosine-based similarity (CoS), Jaccard similarity (or Jaccard coefficient; JS), Mutual information (MI), and information radius (IRad). Their results were compared to those by professionals. The results show that a CoS measure based on top five social tags was most effective. Inclusions of more social tags only aggravate the performance. The performance of JS is comparable to the performance of CoS while tf-idf is comparable with up to 70% less than the best performance. MI and IRad have inferior performance compared to the other methods. This study demonstrates the application of the similarity measuring techniques to the prediction of correct Library of Congress subject headings.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  18. Frohner, H.: Social Tagging : Grundlagen, Anwendungen, Auswirkungen auf Wissensorganisation und soziale Strukturen der User (2010) 0.03 
    0.03051905 = product of:
  0.1220762 = sum of:
    0.1220762 = weight(_text_:social in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1220762 = score(doc=4723,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.66085404 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Social Tagging ist eine Methode zur semantischen Datenorganisation. Im Unterschied zu traditionellen Ansätzen wird die Kategorisierung nicht von Experten vorgenommen, sondern von einer Vielzahl von Benutzern gemeinschaftlich entwickelt. Bezüglich der Daten existieren grundsätzlich keinerlei Einschränkungen. Dabei kann es sich sowohl um multimediale Inhalte als auch um wissenschaftliche Literatur handeln. Jeder Benutzer, unabhängig von Expertise oder Intention, ist aufgefordert, mithilfe von frei gewählten Tags die Kategorisierung der verwendeten Ressourcen zu unterstützen. Insgesamt entsteht dadurch eine Sammlung verschiedenster subjektiver Einschätzungen, die zusammen eine umfassende semantische Organisation bestimmter Inhalte darstellen. Ziel dieses Buches ist es, zunächst die Grundlagen und Anwendungen von Social Tagging zu erörtern und dann speziell die Effekte im Hinblick auf die Wissensorganisation und die sozialen Beziehungen der Benutzer zu analysieren. Eines der zentralen Ergebnisse dieser Arbeit ist die Erkenntnis, dass die gemeinschaftlich erzeugten Metadaten eine unerwartet hohe Qualität bzw. Bedeutsamkeit aufweisen, obwohl Mehrdeutigkeiten und verschiedene Schreibweisen diese negativ beeinflussen könnten. Social Tagging ist besonders effektiv für die Organisation von sehr großen oder auch heterogenen Daten-beständen, die mit herkömmlichen, experten-basierten Kategorisierungsverfahren nicht mehr verarbeitet werden können oder durch automatische Verfahren qualitativ schlechter indexiert werden. Durch Social Tagging wird nicht nur die Wissensorganisation gefördert, sondern darüber hinaus auch die Zusammenarbeit und der Aufbau von Communities, weshalb Social Tagging auch effizient in der Lehre eingesetzt werden kann.
    RSWK
    Social Tagging / Virtuelle Gemeinschaft / Wissensorganisation
    Subject
    Social Tagging / Virtuelle Gemeinschaft / Wissensorganisation
    Theme
    Social tagging
  19. Kipp, M.E.; Beak, J.; Choi, I.: Motivations and intentions of flickr users in enriching flick records for Library of Congress photos (2017) 0.03 
    0.03051905 = product of:
  0.1220762 = sum of:
    0.1220762 = weight(_text_:social in 3828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1220762 = score(doc=3828,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.66085404 = fieldWeight in 3828, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3828)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study is to understand users' motivations and intentions in the use of institutional collections on social tagging sites. Previous social tagging studies have collected social tagging data and analyzed how tagging functions as a tool to organize and retrieve information. Many studies focused on the patterns of tagging rather than the users' perspectives. To provide a more comprehensive picture of users' social tagging activities in institutional collections, and how this compares to social tagging in a more personal context, we collected data from social tagging users by surveying 7,563 participants in the Library of Congress's Flickr Collection. We asked users to describe their motivations for activities within the LC Flickr Collection in their own words using open-ended questions. As a result, we identified 11 motivations using a bottom-up, open-coding approach: affective reactions, opinion on photo, interest in subject, contribution to description, knowledge sharing, improving findability, social network, appreciation, personal use, and personal relationship. Our study revealed that affective or emotional reactions play a critical role in the use of social tagging of institutional collections by comparing our findings to existing frameworks for tagging motivations. We also examined the relationships between participants' occupations and our 11 motivations.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  20. Panke, S.; Gaiser, B.: "With my head up in the clouds" : Social Tagging aus Nutzersicht (2008) 0.03 
    0.029902441 = product of:
  0.119609766 = sum of:
    0.119609766 = weight(_text_:social in 2883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.119609766 = score(doc=2883,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.6475021 = fieldWeight in 2883, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2883)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    28 Prozent der amerikanischen Internetnutzer/innen haben es bereits getan: Das freie Verschlagworten von Inhalten aller Art per Social Tagging gehört zu den Anwendungen aus dem Kontext von Web 2.0, die sich zunehmender Beliebtheit erfreuen (Rainie, 2007). Während sich die bisherige Forschung überwiegend inhaltsanalytisch mit dem Phänomen befasst, kommen im vorliegenden Beitrag so genannte "Power User" zu Wort. Um zu einer fundierteren Interpretation der in den Inhaltsanalysen gewonnenen Erkenntnisse beizutragen, wurden Interviews mit Personen durchgeführt, die mehrere Tagging Systeme parallel einsetzen, sich auch mit den technischen Grundlagen auskennen und als "Early Adopter" bereits seit geraumer Zeit aktiv sind. Entsprechend leitet der Beitrag von einer Synopse der aktuellen Literatur in die beschriebene Studie über und schließt mit einem Ausblick auf zukünftige Forschungsvorhaben im Kontext von Social Tagging.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 105
  • d 43
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 127
  • el 16
  • m 9
  • s 3
  • b 2
  • x 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications