Search (41 results, page 1 of 3)

0.037427407 = product of:
  0.08421166 = sum of:
    0.02424464 = product of:
      0.04848928 = sum of:
        0.04848928 = weight(_text_:headings in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04848928 = score(doc=3616,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.3031215 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.010077749 = weight(_text_:library in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010077749 = score(doc=3616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
    0.016718889 = weight(_text_:of in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016718889 = score(doc=3616,freq=44.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.3241498 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
          6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
            44.0 = termFreq=44.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
    0.03317039 = weight(_text_:congress in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03317039 = score(doc=3616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.21081993 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the linking of a folksonomy (user vocabulary) and LCSH (controlled vocabulary) on the basis of word matching, for the potential use of LCSH in bringing order to folksonomies. Design/methodology/approach - A selected sample of a folksonomy from a popular collaborative tagging system, Delicious, was word-matched with LCSH. LCSH was transformed into a tree structure called an LCSH tree for the matching. A close examination was conducted on the characteristics of folksonomies, the overlap of folksonomies with LCSH, and the distribution of folksonomies over the LCSH tree. Findings - The experimental results showed that the total proportion of tags being matched with LC subject headings constituted approximately two-thirds of all tags involved, with an additional 10 percent of the remaining tags having potential matches. A number of barriers for the linking as well as two areas in need of improving the matching are identified and described. Three important tag distribution patterns over the LCSH tree were identified and supported: skewedness, multifacet, and Zipfian-pattern. Research limitations/implications - The results of the study can be adopted for the development of innovative methods of mapping between folksonomy and LCSH, which directly contributes to effective access and retrieval of tagged web resources and to the integration of multiple information repositories based on the two vocabularies. Practical implications - The linking of controlled vocabularies can be applicable to enhance information retrieval capability within collaborative tagging systems as well as across various tagging system information depositories and bibliographic databases. Originality/value - This is among frontier works that examines the potential of linking a folksonomy, extracted from a collaborative tagging system, to an authority-maintained subject heading system. It provides exploratory data to support further advanced mapping methods for linking the two vocabularies.

Source

Journal of documentation. 65(2009) no.6, S.872-900

0.032045595 = product of:
  0.07210259 = sum of:
    0.0125971865 = weight(_text_:library in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0125971865 = score(doc=764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
    0.01725646 = weight(_text_:of in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01725646 = score(doc=764,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
    0.0155205205 = product of:
      0.031041041 = sum of:
        0.031041041 = weight(_text_:problems in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031041041 = score(doc=764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13613719 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.22801295 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.026728429 = product of:
      0.053456858 = sum of:
        0.053456858 = weight(_text_:etc in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053456858 = score(doc=764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17865302 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)

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.

Source

Library review. 55(2006) no.5, S.291-300

0.027606823 = product of:
  0.08282047 = sum of:
    0.021429438 = product of:
      0.042858876 = sum of:
        0.042858876 = weight(_text_:headings in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042858876 = score(doc=2939,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.048788697 = weight(_text_:library in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048788697 = score(doc=2939,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.5625664 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
    0.012602335 = weight(_text_:of in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012602335 = score(doc=2939,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

Libraries, private and public, offer valuable resources to library patrons. As of today, the only way to locate information archived exclusively in libraries is through their catalogs. Library patrons, however, often find it difficult to formulate a proper query, which requires using specific keywords assigned to different fields of desired library catalog records, to obtain relevant results. These improperly formulated queries often yield irrelevant results or no results at all. This negative experience in dealing with existing library systems turns library patrons away from directly querying library catalogs; instead, they rely on Web search engines to perform their searches first, and upon obtaining the initial information (e.g., titles, subject headings, or authors) on the desired library materials, they query library catalogs. This searching strategy is an evidence of failure of today's library systems. In solving this problem, we propose an enhanced library system, which allows partial, similarity matching of (a) tags defined by ordinary users at a folksonomy site that describe the content of books and (b) unrestricted keywords specified by an ordinary library patron in a query to search for relevant library catalog records. The proposed library system allows patrons posting a query Q using commonly used words and ranks the retrieved results according to their degrees of resemblance with Q while maintaining the query processing time comparable with that achieved by current library search engines.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.7, S.1392-1406

0.020972265 = product of:
  0.06291679 = sum of:
    0.030001212 = product of:
      0.060002424 = sum of:
        0.060002424 = weight(_text_:headings in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060002424 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.37509373 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.01763606 = weight(_text_:library in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01763606 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
    0.015279518 = weight(_text_:of in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015279518 = score(doc=251,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

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.

Source

Library philosophy & Practice (Annual volume 2008), S.1-5

0.018779596 = product of:
  0.056338787 = sum of:
    0.014089839 = weight(_text_:of in 1034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014089839 = score(doc=1034,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 1034, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1034)
    0.0155205205 = product of:
      0.031041041 = sum of:
        0.031041041 = weight(_text_:problems in 1034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031041041 = score(doc=1034,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13613719 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.22801295 = fieldWeight in 1034, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1034)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.026728429 = product of:
      0.053456858 = sum of:
        0.053456858 = weight(_text_:etc in 1034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053456858 = score(doc=1034,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17865302 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 1034, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1034)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

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.

0.017980527 = product of:
  0.053941578 = sum of:
    0.010077749 = weight(_text_:library in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010077749 = score(doc=705,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
    0.010693436 = weight(_text_:of in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010693436 = score(doc=705,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.20732687 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
    0.03317039 = weight(_text_:congress in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03317039 = score(doc=705,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.21081993 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

What is the role of controlled vocabulary in a Web 2.0 world? Can we have the best of both worlds: balancing folksonomies and controlled vocabularies to help communities of users find and share information and resources most relevant to them? education.au develops and manages Australian online services for education and training. Its goal is to bring people, learning and technology together. education.au projects are increasingly involved in exploring the use of Web 2.0 developments building on user ideas, knowledge and experience, and how these might be integrated with existing information management systems. This paper presents work being undertaken in this area, particularly in relation to controlled vocabularies, and discusses the challenges faced. Education Network Australia (edna) is a leading online resource collection and collaborative network for education, with an extensive repository of selected educational resources with metadata created by educators and information specialists. It uses controlled vocabularies for metadata creation and searching, where users receive suggested related terms from an education thesaurus, with their results. We recognise that no formal thesaurus can keep pace with user needs so are interested in exploiting the power of folksonomies. We describe a proof of concept project to develop community contributions to managing information and resources, using Taxonomy-Directed Folksonomy. An established taxonomy from the Australian education sector suggests terms for tagging and users can suggest terms. Importantly, the folksonomy will feed back into the taxonomy showing gaps in coverage and helping us to monitor new terms and usage to improve and develop our formal taxonomies. This model would initially sit alongside the current edna repositories, tools and services but will give us valuable user contributed resources as well as information about how users manage resources. Observing terms suggested, chosen and used in folksonomies is a rich source of information for developing our formal systems so that we can indeed get the best of both worlds.

Content

Vortrag anlässlich: WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 73RD IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND COUNCIL 19-23 August 2007, Durban, South Africa. - 157 - Classification and Indexing

0.011867875 = product of:
  0.035603624 = sum of:
    0.008911197 = weight(_text_:of in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008911197 = score(doc=2650,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
    0.0155205205 = product of:
      0.031041041 = sum of:
        0.031041041 = weight(_text_:problems in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031041041 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13613719 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.22801295 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.011171908 = product of:
      0.022343816 = sum of:
        0.022343816 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022343816 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

There is a growing interest into how we represent and share tagging data in collaborative tagging systems. Conventional tags, meaning freely created tags that are not associated with a structured ontology, are not naturally suited for collaborative processes, due to linguistic and grammatical variations, as well as human typing errors. Additionally, tags reflect personal views of the world by individual users, and are not normalised for synonymy, morphology or any other mapping. Our view is that the conventional approach provides very limited semantic value for collaboration. Moreover, in cases where there is some semantic value, automatically sharing semantics via computer manipulations is extremely problematic. This paper explores these problems by discussing approaches for collaborative tagging activities at a semantic level, and presenting conceptual models for collaborative tagging activities and folksonomies. We present criteria for the comparison of existing tag ontologies and discuss their strengths and weaknesses in relation to these criteria.

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

0.010018523 = product of:
  0.04508335 = sum of:
    0.030305803 = product of:
      0.060611606 = sum of:
        0.060611606 = weight(_text_:headings in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060611606 = score(doc=663,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.3789019 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.014777548 = weight(_text_:of in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014777548 = score(doc=663,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The essence of folksonomies is user-created descriptive metadata as opposed to the traditional sender-determined descriptive metadata in taxonomies and faceted classification. We briefly introduce the beginning and principles of folksonomy and discuss the categorizing concept of folksonomies on the basis of the computer program del.icio.us. The selection of the metadata tagged is not accidental, rather tagging follows a pattern that proves to be the pattern for the classic power law, which, in many complex systems is seen to unfold as an imitation-dynamic that creates an asymmetry, where a few descriptive metadata are often reproduced and the majority seldom reproduced. In del.icio.us, it is the very broad and basic subject headings that are often reproduced and achieve power in the system - which in cognitive psychology is called cognitive basic categories - while the small, more specific subject headings are seldom reproduced. The law of power's underlying imitation-dynamic in del.icio.us is explained from the perspective of different theoretical paradigms, i.e. network, economy and cognition. The theorectical and speculative conclusion is that the law of power and asymmetry is biased by a cognitive economizing through a simplification principle in the users construction of descriptive metadata. Free tagging in folksonomies is comparable to empirical experiments in free categorization. Users often choose broad basic categories, because that requires the least cognitive effort. The consequences are that folksonomy is not necessarily a better, more realistic and cheaper method of creating metadata than that which can be generated through taxonomies, faceted classification or search algorithms. Folksonomy as a self-organizing system likely cannot create better and cheaper descriptive metadata.

0.009229992 = product of:
  0.04153496 = sum of:
    0.028168166 = weight(_text_:library in 5398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028168166 = score(doc=5398,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.32479787 = fieldWeight in 5398, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5398)
    0.013366793 = weight(_text_:of in 5398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013366793 = score(doc=5398,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 5398, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5398)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyse differences between tags on LibraryThing's web page and tag clouds in their "Library-Thing for Libraries" service, and assess if, and how, the Library-Thing tag moderation and limitations to the size of the tag cloud in the library catalogue affect the description of the information resource. An e-mail survey was conducted with personnel at LibraryThing, and the results were compared against tags for twenty different fiction books, collected from two different library catalogues with disparate tag cloud sizes, and Library-Thing's web page. The data were analysed using a modified version of Golder and Huberman's tag categories (2006). The results show that while LibraryThing claims to only remove the inherently personal tags, several other types of tags are found to have been discarded as well. Occasionally a certain type of tag is in-cluded in one book, and excluded in another. The comparison between the two tag cloud sizes suggests that the larger tag clouds provide a more pronounced picture regarding the contents of the book but at the cost of an increase in the number of tags with synonymous or redundant information.

0.008194712 = product of:
  0.0368762 = sum of:
    0.026182763 = weight(_text_:library in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026182763 = score(doc=309,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
    0.0106934365 = weight(_text_:of in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0106934365 = score(doc=309,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This paper describes a survey on how system vendors and libraries handled tagging in OPACs and discovery layers. Tags are user added subject metadata, also called folksonomies. This survey also investigated user behavior when they face the possibility to tag. The findings indicate that legacy/classic systems have no tagging capability. About 47% of the discovery tools provide tagging function. About 49% of the libraries that have a system with tagging capability have turned the tagging function on in their OPACs and discovery tools. Only 40% of the libraries that turned tagging on actually utilized user added subject metadata as access point to collections. Academic library users are less active in tagging than public library users.

0.007819058 = product of:
  0.03518576 = sum of:
    0.02181897 = weight(_text_:library in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02181897 = score(doc=865,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
    0.013366793 = weight(_text_:of in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013366793 = score(doc=865,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Purpose - Many Web 2.0 services (including Library 2.0 catalogs) make use of folksonomies. The purpose of this paper is to cut off all tags in the long tail of a document-specific tag distribution. The remaining tags at the beginning of a tag distribution are considered power tags and form a new, additional search option in information retrieval systems. Design/methodology/approach - In a theoretical approach the paper discusses document-specific tag distributions (power law and inverse-logistic shape), the development of such distributions (Yule-Simon process and shuffling theory) and introduces search tags (besides the well-known index tags) as a possibility for generating tag distributions. Findings - Search tags are compatible with broad and narrow folksonomies and with all knowledge organization systems (e.g. classification systems and thesauri), while index tags are only applicable in broad folksonomies. Based on these findings, the paper presents a sketch of an algorithm for mining and processing power tags in information retrieval systems. Research limitations/implications - This conceptual approach is in need of empirical evaluation in a concrete retrieval system. Practical implications - Power tags are a new search option for retrieval systems to limit the amount of hits. Originality/value - The paper introduces power tags as a means for enhancing the precision of search results in information retrieval systems that apply folksonomies, e.g. catalogs in Library 2.0environments.

Source

Library hi tech. 28(2010) no.1, S.81-93

0.007600979 = product of:
  0.034204405 = sum of:
    0.012475675 = weight(_text_:of in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012475675 = score(doc=404,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
    0.02172873 = product of:
      0.04345746 = sum of:
        0.04345746 = weight(_text_:problems in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04345746 = score(doc=404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13613719 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.31921813 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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.

0.0073145726 = product of:
  0.032915577 = sum of:
    0.01763606 = weight(_text_:library in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01763606 = score(doc=4647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
    0.015279518 = weight(_text_:of in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015279518 = score(doc=4647,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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.

Series

Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization

0.0073145726 = product of:
  0.032915577 = sum of:
    0.01763606 = weight(_text_:library in 5566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01763606 = score(doc=5566,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 5566, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5566)
    0.015279518 = weight(_text_:of in 5566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015279518 = score(doc=5566,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 5566, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5566)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The field of subject analysis enjoyed a flurry of interest in the 1970s, and has recently become a focus of attention again. The scholarly community doing work in this area has become more diffuse, and has grown to include new groups, such as information architects. Changes in information services and information seeking have led to reexamination of the nature and role of subject analysis tools and practices. This selective review looks at thesauri, guided navigation, and folksonomy as three activity areas in which subject analysis researchers have been attempting to address rapidly changing new environments.

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft 'The Influence of F. W. Lancaster on Information Science and on Libraries', das als Festschrift für F.W. Lancaster deklariert ist.

Source

Library trends. 56(2008) no.4, S.830-842

0.0072273845 = product of:
  0.03252323 = sum of:
    0.0125971865 = weight(_text_:library in 421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0125971865 = score(doc=421,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 421, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=421)
    0.019926041 = weight(_text_:of in 421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019926041 = score(doc=421,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.38633084 = fieldWeight in 421, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=421)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This paper develops an ethical conception of library labor as an intellectual craft that can serve as an alternative to a deterministic discourse of technological transformation. In this paper, the author proposes a model of librarianship as an intellectual craft that can be used as an "ideal type" in comparison to recent transformations in the practice of librarianship. This paper then examines the rise of participatory classification in the realm of leisure in user-generated classification schemes (e.g., folksonomies) as a way of examining some of the difficult ethical questions that this ideal of intellectual craft poses when applied to contemporary conditions. Marx's concept of surplus value is used to examine how donated labor adds to the general knowledge. This paper concludes by advocating for the general expansion of leisure coupled with the promotion public institutions that support the craft of those who organize information in a broadly defined public interest. In an era of dramatic change, such a framework offers a positive ethical account of librarians and information professionals' labor that is not wholly dependent on a discourse of market exchange.

Content

Beitrag aus einem Themenheft zu den Proceedings of the 2nd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Information Organization, June 15-16, 2012, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Hope A. Olson, Conference Chair. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_5_g.pdf.

0.0072229374 = product of:
  0.032503217 = sum of:
    0.020155499 = weight(_text_:library in 3857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020155499 = score(doc=3857,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 3857, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3857)
    0.012347717 = weight(_text_:of in 3857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012347717 = score(doc=3857,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 3857, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3857)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Folksonomies are indexing languages that emerge from the distributed resource-description activity of multiple agents who make use of online tagging services to assign tags (i.e., category labels) to the resources in collections. Although individuals' motivations for engaging in tagging activity vary widely, folksonomy-based retrieval systems can be evaluated by measuring the degree to which taggers and searchers agree on tag-resource pairings.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.0067194146 = product of:
  0.030237366 = sum of:
    0.020155499 = weight(_text_:library in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020155499 = score(doc=1141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 1141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1141)
    0.010081868 = weight(_text_:of in 1141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010081868 = score(doc=1141,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 1141, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1141)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Source

¬La interdisciplinariedad y la transdisciplinariedad en la organización del conocimiento científico : actas del VIII Congreso ISKO-España, León, 18, 19 y 20 de Abril de 2007 : Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in the organization of scientific knowledge. Ed.: B. Rodriguez Bravo u. M.L Alvite Diez

0.0065785595 = product of:
  0.029603517 = sum of:
    0.017815111 = weight(_text_:library in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017815111 = score(doc=4640,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
    0.0117884055 = weight(_text_:of in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0117884055 = score(doc=4640,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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.

Object

Library-Thing

0.0061306376 = product of:
  0.027587868 = sum of:
    0.0117884055 = weight(_text_:of in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0117884055 = score(doc=2652,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
    0.015799463 = product of:
      0.031598926 = sum of:
        0.031598926 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031598926 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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

0.0057697734 = product of:
  0.02596398 = sum of:
    0.0125971865 = weight(_text_:library in 4069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0125971865 = score(doc=4069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 4069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4069)
    0.013366793 = weight(_text_:of in 4069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013366793 = score(doc=4069,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 4069, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4069)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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.