Search (89 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Farkas, M.G.: Social software in libraries : building collaboration, communication, and community online (2007) 0.32 
    0.32144597 = product of:
  0.8357595 = sum of:
    0.12250098 = weight(_text_:log in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12250098 = score(doc=2364,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20389368 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.60080814 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
    0.031767312 = weight(_text_:web in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031767312 = score(doc=2364,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
    0.43621442 = weight(_text_:podcasting in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.43621442 = score(doc=2364,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.30598417 = queryWeight, product of:
          9.617446 = idf(docFreq=7, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        1.425611 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          9.617446 = idf(docFreq=7, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
    0.15745503 = weight(_text_:soziale in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15745503 = score(doc=2364,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19438142 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.8100313 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
    0.08782177 = weight(_text_:software in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08782177 = score(doc=2364,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.12621705 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.6957995 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
  0.3846154 = coord(5/13)
    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
    Podcasting
    RSWK
    Bibliothek / Soziale Software
    Bibliothek / Web log
    Bibliothek / Podcasting
    Soziale Software / Bibliothek
    Subject
    Bibliothek / Soziale Software
    Bibliothek / Web log
    Bibliothek / Podcasting
    Soziale Software / Bibliothek
    Podcasting
  2. Heckner, M.: Tagging, rating, posting : studying forms of user contribution for web-based information management and information retrieval (2009) 0.30 
    0.29890347 = product of:
  0.5551064 = sum of:
    0.10208415 = weight(_text_:log in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10208415 = score(doc=2931,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20389368 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.5006735 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
    0.051932186 = weight(_text_:world in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051932186 = score(doc=2931,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.122288436 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.42466965 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
    0.06900814 = weight(_text_:wide in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06900814 = score(doc=2931,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14096694 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.48953426 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
    0.059194893 = weight(_text_:web in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059194893 = score(doc=2931,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
    0.13219507 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13219507 = score(doc=2931,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1845216 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.71642053 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
    0.09278127 = weight(_text_:soziale in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09278127 = score(doc=2931,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19438142 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.47731552 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
    0.0479107 = weight(_text_:software in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0479107 = score(doc=2931,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12621705 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.37958977 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
  0.53846157 = coord(7/13)
    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
    Object
    Web 2.0
    RSWK
    World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem
    Social Tagging / Filter / Web log / World Wide Web 2.0
    Subject
    World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem
    Social Tagging / Filter / Web log / World Wide Web 2.0
  3. Web-2.0-Dienste als Ergänzung zu algorithmischen Suchmaschinen (2008) 0.15 
    0.14887106 = product of:
  0.38706475 = sum of:
    0.044065922 = weight(_text_:world in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044065922 = score(doc=4323,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.122288436 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.36034414 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
    0.058555353 = weight(_text_:wide in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058555353 = score(doc=4323,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14096694 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.4153836 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
    0.050228536 = weight(_text_:web in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050228536 = score(doc=4323,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
    0.12287744 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12287744 = score(doc=4323,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1845216 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.66592443 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
    0.11133752 = weight(_text_:soziale in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11133752 = score(doc=4323,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19438142 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.57277864 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
  0.3846154 = coord(5/13)
    Abstract
    Mit sozialen Suchdiensten - wie z. B. Yahoo Clever, Lycos iQ oder Mister Wong - ist eine Ergänzung und teilweise sogar eine Konkurrenz zu den bisherigen Ansätzen in der Web-Suche entstanden. Während Google und Co. automatisch generierte Trefferlisten bieten, binden soziale Suchdienste die Anwender zu Generierung der Suchergebnisse in den Suchprozess ein. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird in diesem Buch der Frage nachgegangen, inwieweit soziale Suchdienste mit traditionellen Suchmaschinen konkurrieren oder diese qualitativ ergänzen können. Der vorliegende Band beleuchtet die hier aufgeworfene Fragestellung aus verschiedenen Perspektiven, um auf die Bedeutung von sozialen Suchdiensten zu schließen.
    Issue
    Ergebnisse des Fachprojektes "Einbindung von Frage-Antwort-Diensten in die Web-Suche" am Department Information der Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften Hamburg (WS 2007/2008).
    RSWK
    World Wide Web 2.0 / Suchmaschine
    Subject
    World Wide Web 2.0 / Suchmaschine
  4. Komus, A.; Wauch, F.: Wikimanagement : was Unternehmen von Social-Software und Web 2.0 lernen können (2008) 0.08 
    0.07982192 = product of:
  0.25942123 = sum of:
    0.021178208 = weight(_text_:web in 508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021178208 = score(doc=508,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 508, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=508)
    0.066886 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066886 = score(doc=508,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1845216 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.36248332 = fieldWeight in 508, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=508)
    0.10497002 = weight(_text_:soziale in 508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10497002 = score(doc=508,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19438142 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.5400209 = fieldWeight in 508, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=508)
    0.06638701 = weight(_text_:software in 508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06638701 = score(doc=508,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.12621705 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.525975 = fieldWeight in 508, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=508)
  0.30769232 = coord(4/13)
    Abstract
    Wie schaffen es hunderttausende Menschen in ihrer Freizeit eine Enzyklopädie zu erstellen, die in der Qualität der seit Jahrhunderten renommierten Brockhaus-Enzyklopädie in nichts nachsteht und in der Quantität weit übertrifft? Warum veröffentlichen Millionen von Internetnutzern ihre Urlaubsbilder und Videos aus dem privaten Leben im Netz? Wieso funktioniert die Informationsversorgung durch Touristen und Privatleute oftmals besser als die Berichterstattung der großen Agenturen? Und warum versprechen sich Unternehmen wie Google oder die Holtzbrinck Gruppe so viel von derartigen Plattformen, dass deren Gründer über Nacht zu Millionären werden? Wie schaffte es eine australische Brauerei, vom Business Plan bis zur Produktionsplanung alle Prozesse von einer Internet-Community entwickeln zu lassen? Wie passt die lose Kollaboration im Netz zu mühsam ausgearbeiteten und über viele Jahrzehnte untersuchten Organisationsmodellen in Unternehmen? Was können Unternehmen von Wikipedia & Co lernen? Wikimanagement gibt nicht nur einen ausführlichen Überblick über die aktuelle Welt des Web 2.0, sondern stellt auch die Funktionsweise der Wikipedia und anderer Social Software-Systeme den wichtigsten organisationstheoretischen Ansätzen gegenüber. In Anwendungsfeldern wie Innovation, Projektmanagement, Marketing und vielen anderen wird deutlich gemacht, wie Unternehmen von Social Software-Technologie und -Philosophie lernen und profitieren können.
    Content
    Inhalt: I. Wie funktionieren Social Software-Angebote? II. Welchen Erklärungsbeitrag leisten bestehende Organisationsansätze und welche Schlüsse muss die Organisationslehre aus den Erfahrungen ziehen? III. Welches sind die Erfolgsfaktoren von Social Software und wie lassen sich Technologie und Erfolgsfaktoren in das Management übertragen und in Unternehmen nutzen?
    RSWK
    Management / Soziale Software / Leitbild
    Unternehmen / Soziale Software (BVB)
    Subject
    Management / Soziale Software / Leitbild
    Unternehmen / Soziale Software (BVB)
  5. Peters, I.: Folksonomies : indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0 (2009) 0.07 
    0.067983344 = product of:
  0.22094586 = sum of:
    0.029377282 = weight(_text_:world in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029377282 = score(doc=4203,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.122288436 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.24022943 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
    0.039036904 = weight(_text_:wide in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039036904 = score(doc=4203,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14096694 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.2769224 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
    0.036681734 = weight(_text_:web in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036681734 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.35328537 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
    0.11584995 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11584995 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1845216 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.6278395 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
  0.30769232 = coord(4/13)
    Abstract
    Kollaborative Informationsdienste im Web 2.0 werden von den Internetnutzern nicht nur dazu genutzt, digitale Informationsressourcen zu produzieren, sondern auch, um sie inhaltlich mit eigenen Schlagworten, sog. Tags, zu erschließen. Dabei müssen die Nutzer nicht wie bei Bibliothekskatalogen auf Regeln achten. Die Menge an nutzergenerierten Tags innerhalb eines Kollaborativen Informationsdienstes wird als Folksonomy bezeichnet. Die Folksonomies dienen den Nutzern zum Wiederauffinden eigener Ressourcen und für die Recherche nach fremden Ressourcen. Das Buch beschäftigt sich mit Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten, Folksonomies als Methode der Wissensrepräsentation und als Werkzeug des Information Retrievals.
    Footnote
    Zugl.: Düsseldorf, Univ., Diss., 2009 u.d.T.: Peters, Isabella: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval Rez. in: IWP - Information Wissenschaft & Praxis, 61(2010) Heft 8, S.469-470 (U. Spree): "... Nachdem sich die Rezensentin durch 418 Seiten Text hindurch gelesen hat, bleibt sie unentschieden, wie der auffällige Einsatz langer Zitate (im Durchschnitt drei Zitate, die länger als vier kleingedruckte Zeilen sind, pro Seite) zu bewerten ist, zumal die Zitate nicht selten rein illustrativen Charakter haben bzw. Isabella Peters noch einmal zitiert, was sie bereits in eigenen Worten ausgedrückt hat. Redundanz und Verlängerung der Lesezeit halten sich hier die Waage mit der Möglichkeit, dass sich die Leserin einen unmittelbaren Eindruck von Sprache und Duktus der zitierten Literatur verschaffen kann. Eindeutig unschön ist das Beenden eines Gedankens oder einer Argumentation durch ein Zitat (z. B. S. 170). Im deutschen Original entstehen auf diese Weise die für deutsche wissenschaftliche Qualifikationsarbeiten typischen denglischen Texte. Für alle, die sich für Wissensrepräsentation, Information Retrieval und kollaborative Informationsdienste interessieren, ist "Folksonomies : Indexing and Retrieval in Web 2.0" trotz der angeführten kleinen Mängel zur Lektüre und Anschaffung - wegen seines beinahe enzyklopädischen Charakters auch als Nachschlage- oder Referenzwerk geeignet - unbedingt zu empfehlen. Abschließend möchte ich mich in einem Punkt der Produktinfo von de Gruyter uneingeschränkt anschließen: ein "Grundlagenwerk für Folksonomies".
    Object
    Web 2.0
    RSWK
    World Wide Web 2.0
    Subject
    World Wide Web 2.0
  6. Derntl, M.; Hampel, T.; Motschnig, R.; Pitner, T.: Social Tagging und Inclusive Universal Access (2008) 0.05 
    0.048651654 = product of:
  0.21082383 = sum of:
    0.031767312 = weight(_text_:web in 2864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031767312 = score(doc=2864,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2864, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2864)
    0.10032901 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10032901 = score(doc=2864,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1845216 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.543725 = fieldWeight in 2864, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2864)
    0.07872751 = weight(_text_:soziale in 2864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07872751 = score(doc=2864,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19438142 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.40501565 = fieldWeight in 2864, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2864)
  0.23076923 = coord(3/13)
    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.
  7. Marchitelli, A.; Piazzini, T.: OPAC, SOPAC e social networking : cataloghi di biblioteca 2.0? (2008) 0.05 
    0.04659009 = product of:
  0.2018904 = sum of:
    0.026206696 = weight(_text_:web in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026206696 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
    0.1655344 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1655344 = score(doc=3862,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1845216 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.8971004 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
    0.010149285 = product of:
      0.030447856 = sum of:
        0.030447856 = weight(_text_:29 in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030447856 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11191709 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031815533 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.23076923 = coord(3/13)
    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.
    Date
    29. 1.1996 17:18:10
    Footnote
    Übers. d. Titels: OPAC, SOPAC and social networking: catalogues of Library 2.0?
  8. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.04 
    0.03758337 = product of:
  0.16286127 = sum of:
    0.03743814 = weight(_text_:web in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03743814 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.11823886 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11823886 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1845216 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.640786 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.0071842764 = product of:
      0.02155283 = sum of:
        0.02155283 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02155283 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11141258 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031815533 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.23076923 = coord(3/13)
    Abstract
    More and more users index everything on their own in the web 2.0. There are services for links, videos, pictures, books, encyclopaedic articles and scientific articles. All these services are library independent. But must that really be? Can't libraries help with their experience and tools to make user indexing better? On the experience of a project from German language Wikipedia together with the German person authority files (Personen Namen Datei - PND) located at German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) I would like to show what is possible. How users can and will use the authority files, if we let them. We will take a look how the project worked and what we can learn for future projects. Conclusions - Authority files can have a role in the web 2.0 - there must be an open interface/ service for retrieval - everything that is indexed on the net with authority files can be easy integrated in a federated search - O'Reilly: You have to found ways that your data get more important that more it will be used
    Content
    Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".
    Object
    Web 2.0
  9. Peters, I.: Folksonomies und kollaborative Informationsdienste : eine Alternative zur Websuche? (2011) 0.03 
    0.034280006 = product of:
  0.1485467 = sum of:
    0.042356417 = weight(_text_:web in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042356417 = score(doc=343,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
    0.09459109 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09459109 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1845216 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.5126288 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
    0.011599183 = product of:
      0.03479755 = sum of:
        0.03479755 = weight(_text_:29 in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03479755 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11191709 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031815533 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.23076923 = coord(3/13)
    Abstract
    Folksonomies ermöglichen den Nutzern in Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten den Zugang zu verschiedenartigen Informationsressourcen. In welchen Fällen beide Bestandteile des Web 2.0 am besten für das Information Retrieval geeignet sind und wo sie die Websuche ggf. ersetzen können, wird in diesem Beitrag diskutiert. Dazu erfolgt eine detaillierte Betrachtung der Reichweite von Social-Bookmarking-Systemen und Sharing-Systemen sowie der Retrievaleffektivität von Folksonomies innerhalb von Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten.
    Pages
    S.29-53
    Source
    Handbuch Internet-Suchmaschinen, 2: Neue Entwicklungen in der Web-Suche. Hrsg.: D. Lewandowski
  10. Frohner, H.: Social Tagging : Grundlagen, Anwendungen, Auswirkungen auf Wissensorganisation und soziale Strukturen der User (2010) 0.03 
    0.03310264 = product of:
  0.14344476 = sum of:
    0.01871907 = weight(_text_:web in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01871907 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
    0.05911943 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05911943 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1845216 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.320393 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
    0.065606266 = weight(_text_:soziale in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065606266 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19438142 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.33751306 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
  0.23076923 = coord(3/13)
    Series
    Web 2.0
  11. Peters, I.: Folksonomies & Social Tagging (2023) 0.03 
    0.03001144 = product of:
  0.13004957 = sum of:
    0.03635253 = weight(_text_:world in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03635253 = score(doc=796,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.122288436 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.29726875 = fieldWeight in 796, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=796)
    0.0483057 = weight(_text_:wide in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0483057 = score(doc=796,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14096694 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 796, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=796)
    0.045391332 = weight(_text_:web in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045391332 = score(doc=796,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 796, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=796)
  0.23076923 = coord(3/13)
    Abstract
    Die Erforschung und der Einsatz von Folksonomies und Social Tagging als nutzerzentrierte Formen der Inhaltserschließung und Wissensrepräsentation haben in den 10 Jahren ab ca. 2005 ihren Höhenpunkt erfahren. Motiviert wurde dies durch die Entwicklung und Verbreitung des Social Web und der wachsenden Nutzung von Social-Media-Plattformen (s. Kapitel E 8 Social Media und Social Web). Beides führte zu einem rasanten Anstieg der im oder über das World Wide Web auffindbaren Menge an potenzieller Information und generierte eine große Nachfrage nach skalierbaren Methoden der Inhaltserschließung.
  12. Ding, Y.; Jacob, E.K.; Zhang, Z.; Foo, S.; Yan, E.; George, N.L.; Guo, L.: Perspectives on social tagging (2009) 0.03 
    0.027113069 = product of:
  0.117489964 = sum of:
    0.031159312 = weight(_text_:world in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031159312 = score(doc=3290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.122288436 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
    0.041404884 = weight(_text_:wide in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041404884 = score(doc=3290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14096694 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
    0.044925764 = weight(_text_:web in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044925764 = score(doc=3290,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
  0.23076923 = coord(3/13)
    Abstract
    Social tagging is one of the major phenomena transforming the World Wide Web from a static platform into an actively shared information space. This paper addresses various aspects of social tagging, including different views on the nature of social tagging, how to make use of social tags, and how to bridge social tagging with other Web functionalities; it discusses the use of facets to facilitate browsing and searching of tagging data; and it presents an analogy between bibliometrics and tagometrics, arguing that established bibliometric methodologies can be applied to analyze tagging behavior on the Web. Based on the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO), a Web crawler was built to harvest tag data from Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube in September 2007. In total, 1.8 million objects, including bookmarks, photos, and videos, 3.1 million taggers, and 12.1 million tags were collected and analyzed. Some tagging patterns and variations are identified and discussed.
  13. Huang, C.; Fu, T.; Chen, H.: Text-based video content classification for online video-sharing sites (2010) 0.03 
    0.025809979 = product of:
  0.16776486 = sum of:
    0.049526002 = weight(_text_:web in 3452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049526002 = score(doc=3452,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.47698978 = fieldWeight in 3452, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3452)
    0.11823886 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11823886 = score(doc=3452,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1845216 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.640786 = fieldWeight in 3452, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3452)
  0.15384616 = coord(2/13)
    Abstract
    With the emergence of Web 2.0, sharing personal content, communicating ideas, and interacting with other online users in Web 2.0 communities have become daily routines for online users. User-generated data from Web 2.0 sites provide rich personal information (e.g., personal preferences and interests) and can be utilized to obtain insight about cyber communities and their social networks. Many studies have focused on leveraging user-generated information to analyze blogs and forums, but few studies have applied this approach to video-sharing Web sites. In this study, we propose a text-based framework for video content classification of online-video sharing Web sites. Different types of user-generated data (e.g., titles, descriptions, and comments) were used as proxies for online videos, and three types of text features (lexical, syntactic, and content-specific features) were extracted. Three feature-based classification techniques (C4.5, Naïve Bayes, and Support Vector Machine) were used to classify videos. To evaluate the proposed framework, user-generated data from candidate videos, which were identified by searching user-given keywords on YouTube, were first collected. Then, a subset of the collected data was randomly selected and manually tagged by users as our experiment data. The experimental results showed that the proposed approach was able to classify online videos based on users' interests with accuracy rates up to 87.2%, and all three types of text features contributed to discriminating videos. Support Vector Machine outperformed C4.5 and Naïve Bayes techniques in our experiments. In addition, our case study further demonstrated that accurate video-classification results are very useful for identifying implicit cyber communities on video-sharing Web sites.
    Object
    Web 2.0
  14. Seehaus, S.: Können Suchmaschinen von Sozialer Software profitieren? (2008) 0.03 
    0.02577851 = product of:
  0.16756031 = sum of:
    0.10497002 = weight(_text_:soziale in 2306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10497002 = score(doc=2306,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19438142 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.5400209 = fieldWeight in 2306, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2306)
    0.06259028 = weight(_text_:software in 2306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06259028 = score(doc=2306,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12621705 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.49589399 = fieldWeight in 2306, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2306)
  0.15384616 = coord(2/13)
    Abstract
    Im Rahmen eines Projekts gingen Stu­dierende an der HAW Hamburg für ihre Auftraggeber Lycos Europe und T-Online der Frage nach, wie sich Inhalte aus sozialen Suchdiensten in die algorithmische Suche einbinden lassen. Dazu analysierten und verglichen sie die Vor- und Nachteile der Systeme, die Relevanz der Sucher­gebnisse, die Benutzerfreundlichkeit sowie die Qualität der Inhalte. Für soziale Software ergaben sich daraus bedeutende Verbesserungspotentiale. Der Text beschreibt die Ergebnisse und die Empfehlungen für Lycos IQ.
  15. Regulski, K.: Aufwand und Nutzen beim Einsatz von Social-Bookmarking-Services als Nachweisinstrument für wissenschaftliche Forschungsartikel am Beispiel von BibSonomy (2007) 0.03 
    0.025188081 = product of:
  0.16372252 = sum of:
    0.029950509 = weight(_text_:web in 4595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029950509 = score(doc=4595,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 4595, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4595)
    0.133772 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.133772 = score(doc=4595,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1845216 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.72496665 = fieldWeight in 4595, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4595)
  0.15384616 = coord(2/13)
    Abstract
    Autoren wissenschaftlicher Artikel stehen unterschiedliche Wege bei der Recherche nach Hintergrundmaterial zu ihren Projekten zur Verfügung. Dass Social-Bookmarking-Dienste, die als Teil des Web 2.0 (O'Reilly, 2005) und der Bibliothek 2.0 (Danowski, 2006) genannt werden, eine sinnvolle Ergänzung zu den herkömmlichen Nachweisdatenbanken sein können, soll der vorliegende Artikel zeigen.
  16. Carlin, S.A.: Schlagwortvergabe durch Nutzende (Tagging) als Hilfsmittel zur Suche im Web : Ansatz, Modelle, Realisierungen (2006) 0.02 
    0.023613986 = product of:
  0.10232727 = sum of:
    0.025966093 = weight(_text_:world in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025966093 = score(doc=2476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.122288436 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
    0.03450407 = weight(_text_:wide in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03450407 = score(doc=2476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14096694 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
    0.041857112 = weight(_text_:web in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041857112 = score(doc=2476,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
  0.23076923 = coord(3/13)
    Abstract
    Nach dem zu Beginn der Ära des World Wide Web von Hand gepflegte Linklisten und -Verzeichnisse und an Freunde und Kollegen per E-Mail verschickte Links genügten, um die Informationen zu finden, nach denen man suchte, waren schon bald Volltextsuchmaschinen und halbautomatisch betriebene Kataloge notwendig, um den mehr und mehr anschwellenden Informationsfluten des Web Herr zu werden. Heute bereits sind diese Dämme gebrochen und viele Millionen Websites halten Billionen an Einzelseiten mit Informationen vor, von Datenbanken und anderweitig versteckten Informationen ganz zu schweigen. Mit Volltextsuchmaschinen erreicht man bei dieser Masse keine befriedigenden Ergebnisse mehr. Entweder man erzeugt lange Suchterme mit vielen Ausschließungen und ebenso vielen nicht-exklusiven ODER-Verknüpfungen um verschiedene Schreibweisen für den gleichen Term abzudecken oder man wählt von vornherein die Daten-Quelle, an die man seine Fragen stellt, genau aus. Doch oft bleiben nur klassische Web-Suchmaschinen übrig, zumal wenn der Fragende kein Informationsspezialist mit Kenntnissen von Spezialdatenbanken ist, sondern, von dieser Warte aus gesehenen, ein Laie. Und nicht nur im Web selbst, auch in unternehmensinternen Intranets steht man vor diesem Problem. Tausende von indizierten Dokumente mögen ein Eckdatum sein, nach dem sich der Erfolg der Einführung eines Intranets bemessen lässt, aber eine Aussage über die Nützlichkeit ist damit nicht getroffen. Und die bleibt meist hinter den Erwartungen zurück, vor allem bei denen Mitarbeitern, die tatsächlich mit dem Intranet arbeiten müssen. Entscheidend ist für die Informationsauffindung in Inter- und Intranet eine einfach zu nutzende und leicht anpassbare Möglichkeit, neue interessante Inhalte zu entdecken. Mit Tags steht eine mögliche Lösung bereit.
  17. Hotho, A.; Jäschke, R.; Benz, D.; Grahl, M.; Krause, B.; Schmitz, C.; Stumme, G.: Social Bookmarking am Beispiel BibSonomy (2009) 0.02 
    0.02253337 = product of:
  0.1464669 = sum of:
    0.051875807 = weight(_text_:web in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051875807 = score(doc=4873,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.49962097 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
    0.09459109 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09459109 = score(doc=4873,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1845216 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.5126288 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
  0.15384616 = coord(2/13)
    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
  18. Blumauer, A.; Hochmeister, M.: Tag-Recommender gestützte Annotation von Web-Dokumenten (2009) 0.02 
    0.021748796 = product of:
  0.14136717 = sum of:
    0.058599956 = weight(_text_:web in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058599956 = score(doc=4866,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.5643819 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
    0.0827672 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0827672 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1845216 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.4485502 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
  0.15384616 = coord(2/13)
    Abstract
    In diesem Kapitel wird die zentrale Bedeutung der Annotation von Webdokumenten bzw. von Ressourcen in einem Semantischen Web diskutiert. Es wird auf aktuelle Methoden und Techniken in diesem Gebiet eingegangen, insbesondere wird das Phänomen "Social Tagging" als zentrales Element eines "Social Semantic Webs" beleuchtet. Weiters wird der Frage nachgegangen, welchen Mehrwert "Tag Recommender" beim Annotationsvorgang bieten, sowohl aus Sicht des End-Users aber auch im Sinne eines kollaborativen Ontologieerstellungsprozesses. Schließlich wird ein Funktionsprinzip für einen semi-automatischen Tag-Recommender vorgestellt unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Anwendbarkeit in einem Corporate Semantic Web.
    Source
    Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini
  19. Good tags - bad tags : Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation (2008) 0.02 
    0.020958018 = product of:
  0.09081808 = sum of:
    0.01621119 = weight(_text_:web in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01621119 = score(doc=3054,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.15613155 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
    0.04180375 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04180375 = score(doc=3054,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1845216 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.22655207 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
    0.032803133 = weight(_text_:soziale in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032803133 = score(doc=3054,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19438142 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.16875653 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
  0.23076923 = coord(3/13)
    Abstract
    Teile und sammle könnte der moderne Leitspruch für das Phänomen Social Tagging heißen. Die freie und kollaborative Verschlagwortung digitaler Ressourcen im Internet gehört zu den Anwendungen aus dem Kontext von Web 2.0, die sich zunehmender Beliebtheit erfreuen. Der 2003 gegründete Social Bookmarking Dienst Del.icio.us und die 2004 entstandene Bildersammlung Flickr waren erste Anwendungen, die Social Tagging anboten und noch immer einen Großteil der Nutzer/innen an sich binden. Beim Blick in die Literatur wird schnell deutlich, dass Social Tagging polarisiert: Von Befürwortern wird es als eine Form der innovativen Wissensorganisation gefeiert, während Skeptiker die Dienste des Web 2.0 inklusive Social Tagging als globale kulturelle Bedrohung verdammen. Launischer Hype oder Quantensprung was ist dran am Social Tagging? Mit der Zielsetzung, mehr über die Erwartungen, Anwendungsbereiche und Nutzungsweisen zu erfahren, wurde im Frühjahr 2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen ein Workshop der Gesellschaft für Medien in der Wissenschaft (GMW) durchgeführt. Die vorliegende Publikation fasst die Ergebnisse der interdisziplinären Veranstaltung zusammen.
    Content
    - Theoretische Ansätze und empirische Untersuchungen Stefanie Panke & Birgit Gaiser: "With my head up in the clouds" - Social Tagging aus Nutzersicht Christoph Held& Ulrike Cress: Social Tagging aus kognitionspsychologischer Sicht Michael Derntl, Thorsten Hampel, Renate Motschnig & Tomas Pitner: Social Tagging und Inclusive Universal Access - Einsatz von Tagging in Hochschulen und Bibliotheken Christian Hänger: Good tags or bad tags? Tagging im Kontext der bibliothekarischen Sacherschließung Mandy Schiefner: Social Tagging in der universitären Lehre Michael Blank, Thomas Bopp, Thorsten Hampel & Jonas Schulte: Social Tagging = Soziale Suche? Andreas Harrer & Steffen Lohmann: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse Harald Sack & Jörg Waitelonis: Zeitbezogene kollaborative Annotation zur Verbesserung der inhaltsbasierten Videosuche - Kommerzielle Anwendungen von Tagging Karl Tschetschonig, Roland Ladengruber, Thorsten Hampel & Jonas Schulte: Kollaborative Tagging-Systeme im Electronic Commerce Tilman Küchler, Jan M. Pawlowski & Volker Zimmermann: Social Tagging and Open Content: A Concept for the Future of E-Learning and Knowledge Management? Stephan Schillenvein: Der .Business Case' für die Nutzung von Social Tagging in Intranets und internen Informationssystemen
    - Tagging im Semantic Web Benjamin Birkenhake: Semantic Weblog. Erfahrungen vom Bloggen mit Tags und Ontologien Simone Braun, Andreas Schmidt, Andreas Walter & Valentin Zacharias: Von Tags zu semantischen Beziehungen: kollaborative Ontologiereifung Jakob Voß: Vom Social Tagging zum Semantic Tagging Georg Güntner, Rolf Sint & Rupert Westenthaler: Ein Ansatz zur Unterstützung traditioneller Klassifikation durch Social Tagging Viktoria Pammer, Tobias Ley & Stefanie Lindstaedt: tagr: Unterstützung in kollaborativen Tagging-Umgebungen durch Semantische und Assoziative Netzwerke Matthias Quasthoff Harald Sack & Christoph Meinet: Nutzerfreundliche Internet-Sicherheit durch tag-basierte Zugriffskontrolle
  20. Hänger, C.: Knowledge management in the digital age : the possibilities of user generated content (2009) 0.02 
    0.016935427 = product of:
  0.110080265 = sum of:
    0.026472762 = weight(_text_:web in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026472762 = score(doc=2813,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10383032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
    0.0836075 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0836075 = score(doc=2813,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1845216 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031815533 = queryNorm
        0.45310414 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
  0.15384616 = coord(2/13)
    Abstract
    Today, in times of Web 2.0., graduates and undergraduates interact in virtual communities like studiVZ (Studentenverzeichnis) and generate content by reviewing or tagging documents. This phenomenon offers good prospects for academic libraries. They can use the customers' tags for indexing the growing amount of electronic resources and thereby optimize the search for these documents. Important examples are the journals, databases and e-books included in the "Nationallizenzen" financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The documents in this collection are not manually indexed by librarians and have no annotation according to the German standard classification systems. Connecting search systems by means of Web-2.0.-services is an important task for libraries. For this purpose users are encouraged to tag printed and electronic resources in search systems like the libraries' online catalogs and to establish connections between entries in other systems, e.g. Bibsonomy, and the items found in the online catalog. As a consequence annotations chosen by both, users and librarians, will coexist: The items in the tagging systems and the online catalog are linked, library users may find other publications of interest, and contacts between library users with similar scientific interests may be established. Librarians have to face the fact that user generated tags do not necessarily have the same quality as their own annotations and will therefore have to seek for instruments for comparing user generated tags with library generated keywords.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 62
  • d 26
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 75
  • el 9
  • m 9
  • s 3
  • b 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications