Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Folksonomies"
  1. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.05 
    0.05178729 = product of:
  0.10357458 = sum of:
    0.08138413 = weight(_text_:social in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08138413 = score(doc=2652,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.44056937 = fieldWeight in 2652, 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=2652)
    0.022190453 = product of:
      0.044380907 = sum of:
        0.044380907 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044380907 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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(2/4)
    Abstract
    Folksonomy is the result of describing Web resources with tags created by Web users. Although it has become a popular application for the description of resources, in general terms Folksonomies are not being conveniently integrated in metadata. However, if the appropriate metadata elements are identified, then further work may be conducted to automatically assign tags to these elements (RDF properties) and use them in Semantic Web applications. This article presents research carried out to continue the project Kinds of Tags, which intends to identify elements required for metadata originating from folksonomies and to propose an application profile for DC Social Tagging. The work provides information that may be used by software applications to assign tags to metadata elements and, therefore, means for tags to be conveniently gathered by metadata interoperability tools. Despite the unquestionably high value of DC and the significance of the already existing properties in DC Terms, the pilot study show revealed a significant number of tags for which no corresponding properties yet existed. A need for new properties, such as Action, Depth, Rate, and Utility was determined. Those potential new properties will have to be validated in a later stage by the DC Social Tagging Community.
    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
    Theme
    Social tagging
  2. Braun, M.: Lesezeichen zum Stöbern : "Social bookmark"-Seiten setzen auf die Empfehlungen ihrer Nutzer (2007) 0.04 
    0.038830064 = product of:
  0.07766013 = sum of:
    0.06510731 = weight(_text_:social in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06510731 = score(doc=3373,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3524555 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
    0.012552816 = product of:
      0.025105633 = sum of:
        0.025105633 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025105633 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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(2/4)
    Content
    "Irgendwann ist es einfach zu viel Information. Einmal "Schokolade" bei Google eingeben und mal eben 9 870 000 Links zur Auswahl. "Pilgern - 800 000 Einträge. 21400 000 für "Hörbuch. Die Auswahl fällt schwer, und wer hat schon die Geduld, sich alle Seiten anzugucken. Am besten wäre es, irgendjemand könnte eine der, vielen Seiten empfehlen. Auf eben dieses Prinzip setzen immer mehr Internet-Seiten. Seiten wie www.mister-wong.de bestehen nur aus Empfehlungen von Nutzern für Nutzer. Immerhin vier empfehlen die Webseite zum Pralinenclub, acht Nutzer haben sich für www.theobroma-cacao.de ein Lesezeichen angelegt, beim Pilgern sind sich auch gleich einige Benutzer einig, welche Seite sie am liebsten zum Thema lesen und empfehlen. "Social bookmarks" - Lesezeichen, die man anderen zur Verfügung stellt - sind vor allem auf englischsprachigen Seiten zu finden. Mit Anbietern wie "Mister Wong" oder "Netselektor" können jetzt auch die Deutschen ihre Lieblingslesezeichen im Internet mit anderen teilen. "Bei den großen Suchmaschinen haben es gute Seiten oft schwer: Wenn sie nicht bei Yahoo oder Google nach der Suchanfrage ganz oben stehen, findet sie niemand", sagt "Mister Wong"Pressesprecher Christian Clawien. Für ihn ist das Konzept der "Social bookmarks" die ideale Alternative zur mechanischen Suchmaschine. Noch sind die Zahlen der Aktiven aber gering. 1,3 Millionen abgespeicherte Bookmarks verzeichnet "Mister Wong" seit der Gründung im März 2006. Vor allem Leute, die sowieso bereits einen guten Draht zum Internet haben, nutzten das Angebot, sagt Clawien. Langsam beginnt die Phase, wo Monetarisierung möglich ist." Langfristig soll auch Werbung auf der Seite erscheinen. Bei "www.netselektor.de", im November 2006 gegründet, sitzt zudem noch eine Redaktion vor dem Computer, die die abgelegten Lesezeichen der Nutzer durchforstet und die besten Empfehlungen noch mal als qualitativ hochwertig vorstellt. Nach und nach soll so in Zusammenarbeit mit den Usern ein "Best-of-Internet" entstehen. Natürlich nur mit den Internet-Juwelen, die einer Empfehlung würdig sind. Allerdings erreichen die "Social bookmark"-Seiten auch schnell ihre Grenzen: Nicht alle Stichworte bringen Ergebnisse, nicht immer sind die Vorlieben der Nutzer für Internet-Seiten nachvollziehbar, und noch reicht auch nicht die Anzahl der beteiligten Nutzer, um tatsächlich all die verborgenen Juwelen im riesigen weltweiten Netz zutage zu fördern. Originelles gibt es aber trotzdem schon jetzt - vom Karaoke Trainer bis zu www.dontclick.it", die Seite, die ohne Maus funktionieren soll."
    Date
    3. 5.1997 8:44:22
  3. Kim, H.L.; Scerri, S.; Breslin, J.G.; Decker, S.; Kim, H.G.: ¬The state of the art in tag ontologies : a semantic model for tagging and folksonomies (2008) 0.04 
    0.03661915 = product of:
  0.0732383 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=2650,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 2650, 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=2650)
    0.015691021 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031382043 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  4. Morrison, P.J.: Tagging and searching : search retrieval effectiveness of folksonomies on the World Wide Web (2008) 0.03 
    0.033829853 = product of:
  0.067659706 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 2109, 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=2109)
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  5. Macgregor, G.; McCulloch, E.: Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool (2006) 0.03 
    0.03341625 = product of:
  0.0668325 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 764, 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=764)
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 764, 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=764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
  6. Güntner, G.; Sint, R.; Westenthaler, R.: ¬Ein Ansatz zur Unterstützung traditioneller Klassifikation durch Social Tagging (2008) 0.03 
    0.027297068 = product of:
  0.10918827 = sum of:
    0.10918827 = weight(_text_:social in 2897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10918827 = score(doc=2897,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.59108585 = fieldWeight in 2897, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2897)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Der vorliegende Beitrag stellt einen Ansatz zur Kombination von traditionellen, geschlossenen Klassifikationsverfahren mit offenen, auf Social Tagging basierenden Klassifikationsverfahren vor. Die Darstellung geht von den grundsätzlichen Anforderungen an die Suche und Navigation in Dokumentenarchiven aus, erörtert die Vor- und Nachteile von geschlossenen und offenen Klassifikationsansätzen und präsentiert schließlich einen kombinierten Lösungsansatz, der im Rahmen eines Prototypen umgesetzt wurde. Der Lösungsansatz sieht vor, dass Dokumente grundsätzlich mit freien Tags klassifiziert werden können: Die Klassifikation wird jedoch durch ein kontrolliertes Vokabular unterstützt. Freie Tags werden in einem nachgeordneten, moderierten Prozess in das kontrollierte Vokabular übernommen. Das auf diese Weise wachsende und laufend gepflegte Vokabular unterstützt die Suche und Navigation im Dokumentenraum.
    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
  7. Tennis, J.T.: Social tagging and the next steps for indexing (2006) 0.02 
    0.02441524 = product of:
  0.09766096 = sum of:
    0.09766096 = weight(_text_:social in 570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09766096 = score(doc=570,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.52868325 = fieldWeight in 570, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=570)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  8. Noruzi, A.: Folksonomies : (un)controlled vocabulary? (2006) 0.02 
    0.020141546 = product of:
  0.08056618 = sum of:
    0.08056618 = weight(_text_:social in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08056618 = score(doc=404,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.43614143 = fieldWeight in 404, 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=404)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  9. Simon, D.: Anreicherung bibliothekarischer Titeldaten durch Tagging : Möglichkeiten und Probleme (2007) 0.02 
    0.020141546 = product of:
  0.08056618 = sum of:
    0.08056618 = weight(_text_:social in 530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08056618 = score(doc=530,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.43614143 = fieldWeight in 530, 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=530)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Die Arbeit ist die untersucht dier Möglichkeiten von Tagging-Verfahren im Kontext bibliothekarischer Erschließung. Der Verfasser führt dazu in das Thema Social Tagging bzw. Folksonomy ein und erklärt die Funktionsweise von Tagging-Systemen. Die Untersuchung stützt sich im wesentlichen auf eine Analyse des KölnerUniversitätsGesamtkatalogs (KUG), der direktes Tagging durch Katalognutzer ebenso ermöglicht wie die Übernahme von Katalogeinträgen für das System BibSonomy. KUG und BibSonomy werden daher mit ihren Eigenschaften vorgestellt, bevor eine bewertende Analyse der Taggingmöglichkeiten und deren bisheriger tatsächlicher Nutzung vorgenommen wird. Dabei untersucht der Verfasser auch den möglichen Beitrag von Tagging-Verfahren in Ergänzung zu den Ergebnissen von Verfahren der inhaltlichen Erschließung und automatischen Indexierung.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  10. Trant, J.: Exploring the potential for social tagging and folksonomy in art museums : proof of concept (2006) 0.02 
    0.01993496 = product of:
  0.07973984 = sum of:
    0.07973984 = weight(_text_:social in 5900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07973984 = score(doc=5900,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.43166807 = fieldWeight in 5900, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5900)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Documentation of art museum collections has been traditionally written by and for art historians. To make art museum collections broadly accessible, and to enable art museums to engage their communities, means of access need to reflect the perspectives of other groups and communities. Social Tagging (the collective assignment of keywords to resources) and its resulting Folksonomy (the assemblage of concepts expressed in such a cooperatively developed system of classification) offer ways for art museums to engage with their communities and to understand what users of online museum collections see as important. Proof of Concept studies at The Metropolitan Museum of Art compared terms assigned by trained cataloguers and untrained cataloguers to existing museum documentation, and explored the potential for social tagging to improve access to museum collections. These preliminary studies, the results of which are reported here, have shown the potential of social tagging and folksonomy to open museum collections to new, more personal meanings. Untrained cataloguers identified content elements not described in formal museum documentation. Results from these tests - the first in the domain - provided validation for exploring social tagging and folksonomy as an access strategy within The Metropolitan Museum, motivation to proceed with a broader inter-institutional collaboration, and input into the development of a multi-institutional collaboration exploring tagging in art museums. Tags assigned by users might help bridge the semantic gap between the professional discourse of the curator and the popular language of the museum visitor. The steve collaboration (http://www.steve.museum) is building on these early studies to develop shared tools and research methods that enable social tagging of art museum collections and explore the utility of folksonomy for providing enhanced access to collections.
  11. Peterson, E.: Parallel systems : the coexistence of subject cataloging and folksonomy (2008) 0.01 
    0.0142422225 = product of:
  0.05696889 = sum of:
    0.05696889 = weight(_text_:social in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05696889 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 251, 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=251)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  12. Lüth, J.: Inhaltserschließung durch Nutzerinnen und Nutzer : Ergebnisse eines Tests mit Internetquellen der virtuellen Fachbibliothek EconBiz (2007) 0.01 
    0.0142422225 = product of:
  0.05696889 = sum of:
    0.05696889 = weight(_text_:social in 411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05696889 = score(doc=411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 411, 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=411)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    - ViFas können Social Bookmarking nutzen, um neue Quellen zu erschließen (Personalknappheit). - Der Erfolg ist allerdings davon abhängig, dass eine kritische Masse an Nutzerinnen und Nutzern erreicht wird. Bei den zu erwartenden fachlich spezialisierten Nutzerinnen und Nutzern einer ViFa kann diese sicherlich vergleichsweise niedriger sein. - Delicious erfährt derzeit bereits eine intensive Nutzung, so dass hier deutliche Überschneidungen mit den EconBiz Internetquellen erkennbar sind. Bei Mister Wong ist dies noch zu gering ausgeprägt. - Großes Potential ist vorhanden wenn viele Nutzerinnen und Nutzer viele Inhalte einbringen.
  13. Peters, I.: Folksonomies : indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0 (2009) 0.01 
    0.014096146 = product of:
  0.056384586 = sum of:
    0.056384586 = weight(_text_:social in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056384586 = score(doc=4203,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.30523545 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    RSWK
    Social Tagging
    Subject
    Social Tagging
    Theme
    Social tagging
  14. Fiala, S.: Deutscher Bibliothekartag Leipzig 2007 : Sacherschließung - Informationsdienstleistung nach Mass (2007) 0.01 
    0.01220762 = product of:
  0.04883048 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=415,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 415, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=415)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Jan Lüth (Kiel) zeigte mit seinem Vortrag "Inhaltserschließung durch Nutzerinnen und Nutzer: Ergebnisse eines Tests mit Internetquellen der Virtuellen Fachbibliothek EconBiz" als letzter an diesem Nachmittag eine alternative neue Methode der Erschließung. Für diesen Test wurde eine Teilmenge der im EconBiz-Fachinformationsführer enthaltenen Internetquellen in Social-Bookmarking-Webseiten angeboten, und es wurde beobachtet, inwieweit diese Internetquellen nachgenutzt und durch Schlagworte (Tags) ergänzt wurden. Social-Bookmarking-Webseiten ermöglichen eine private, aber auch öffentliche Verwaltung von Lesezeichen im Internet, welche mit freien Schlagwörtern (Tags), einem Titel und/oder einer Beschreibung versehen werden können. Diese Inhalte werden indexiert und somit werden verschiedene Sprachen, Begriffe und Schreibweisen suchbar. Ziel des Tests sollen Ergebnisse über Potenzial und Einsatzmöglichkeiten von Social-Bookmarking-Systemen im Kontext einer virtuellen Fachbibliothek sein. Als Fazit lässt sich sagen, dass Social Bookmarking sehr aufschlussreich sein kann, um neue Quellen zu erschließen und auszuwählen, und dass ein sehr großes Potenzial vorhanden ist, wenn viele Anwender viele Inhalte einbringen."
  15. Munk, T.B.; Moerk, K.: Folksonomies, tagging communities, and tagging strategies : an empirical study (2007) 0.01 
    0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=1091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 1091, 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=1091)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Theme
    Social tagging
  16. Shirky, C.: Ontology is overrated : categories, links, and tags (2005) 0.01 
    0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 1265, 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=1265)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Theme
    Social tagging
  17. Chopin, K.: Finding communities : alternative viewpoints through weblogs and tagging (2008) 0.01 
    0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 2341, 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=2341)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Theme
    Social tagging
  18. Carlin, S.A.: Schlagwortvergabe durch Nutzende (Tagging) als Hilfsmittel zur Suche im Web : Ansatz, Modelle, Realisierungen (2006) 0.01 
    0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=2476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 2476, 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=2476)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Theme
    Social tagging
  19. Broughton, V.: Automatic metadata generation : Digital resource description without human intervention (2007) 0.01 
    0.009414612 = product of:
  0.03765845 = sum of:
    0.03765845 = product of:
      0.0753169 = sum of:
        0.0753169 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0753169 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:41:14
  20. Wesch, M.: Information R/evolution (2006) 0.01 
    0.005491857 = product of:
  0.021967428 = sum of:
    0.021967428 = product of:
      0.043934856 = sum of:
        0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043934856 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    5. 1.2008 19:22:48

Authors

Languages

Types

Themes

Subjects

Classifications