Search (76 results, page 4 of 4)

0.004355476 = product of:
  0.026132854 = sum of:
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1189, 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=1189)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Connotea is a free online reference management and social bookmarking service for scientists created by Nature Publishing Group. While somewhat experimental in nature, Connotea already has a large and growing number of users, and is a real, fully functioning service. The label 'experimental' is not meant to imply that the service is any way ephemeral or esoteric, rather that the concept of social bookmarking itself and the application of that concept to reference management are both recent developments. Connotea is under active development, and we are still in the process of discovering how people will use it. In addition to Connotea being a free and public service, the core code is freely available under an open source license. Connotea was conceived from the outset as an online, social tool. Seeing the possibilities that del.icio.us was opening up for its users in the area of general web linking, we realised that scholarly reference management was a similar problem space. Connotea was designed and developed late in 2004, and soft-launched at the end of December 2004. Usage has grown over the past several months, to the point where there is now enough data in the system for interesting second-order effects to emerge. This paper will start by giving an overview of Connotea, and will outline the key concepts and describe its main features. We will then take the reader on a brief guided tour, show some of the aforementioned second-order effects, and end with a discussion of Connotea's likely future direction.

0.004355476 = product of:
  0.026132854 = sum of:
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2341, 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=2341)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to discuss and test the claim that user-based tagging allows for access to a wider variety of viewpoints than is found using other forms of online searching. Design/methodology/approach - A general overview of the nature of weblogs and user-based tagging is given, along with other relevant concepts. A case is then analyzed where viewpoints towards a specific issue are searched for using both tag searching (Technorati) and general search engine searching (Google and Google Blog Search). Findings - The claim to greater accessibility through user-based tagging is not overtly supported with these experiments. Further results for both general and tag-specific searching goes against some common assumptions about the types of content found on weblogs as opposed to more general web sites. Research limitations/implications - User-based tagging is still not widespread enough to give conclusive data for analysis. As this changes, further research in this area, using a variety of search subjects, is warranted. Originality/value - Although proponents of user-based tagging attribute many qualities to the practice, these qualities have not been properly documented or demonstrated. This paper partially rectifies this gap by testing one of the claims made, that of accessibility to alternate views, thus adding to the discussion on tagging for both researchers and other interested parties.

0.004355476 = product of:
  0.026132854 = sum of:
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Series

Web 2.0

0.004355476 = product of:
  0.026132854 = sum of:
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 296, 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=296)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - This study aims to consider the value of user-assigned image tags by comparing the facets that are represented in image tags with those that are present in image queries to see if there is a similarity in the way that users describe and search for images. Design/methodology/approach - A sample dataset was created by downloading a selection of images and associated tags from Flickr, the online photo-sharing web site. The tags were categorised using image facets from Shatford's matrix, which has been widely used in previous research into image indexing and retrieval. The facets present in the image tags were then compared with the results of previous research into image queries. Findings - The results reveal that there are broad similarities between the facets present in image tags and queries, with people and objects being the most common facet, followed by location. However, the results also show that there are differences in the level of specificity between tags and queries, with image tags containing more generic terms and image queries consisting of more specific terms. The study concludes that users do describe and search for images using similar image facets, but that measures to close the gap between specific queries and generic tags would improve the value of user tags in indexing image collections. Originality/value - Research into tagging has tended to focus on textual resources with less research into non-textual documents. In particular, little research has been undertaken into how user tags compare to the terms used in search queries, particularly in the context of digital images.

0.004355476 = product of:
  0.026132854 = sum of:
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=745,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 745, 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=745)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

With the increasing popularity of social tagging systems, the potential for using social tags as a source of metadata is being explored. Social tagging systems can simplify the involvement of a large number of users and improve the metadata-generation process. Current research is exploring social tagging systems as a mechanism to allow nonprofessional catalogers to participate in metadata generation. Because social tags are not from controlled vocabularies, there are issues that have to be addressed in finding quality terms to represent the content of a resource. This research explores ways to obtain a set of tags representing the resource from the tags provided by users. Two metrics are introduced. Annotation Dominance (AD) is a measure of the extent to which a tag term is agreed to by users. Cross Resources Annotation Discrimination (CRAD) is a measure of a tag's potential to classify a collection. It is designed to remove tags that are used too broadly or narrowly. Using the proposed measurements, the research selects important tags (meta-terms) and removes meaningless ones (tag noise) from the tags provided by users. To evaluate the proposed approach to find classificatory metadata candidates, we rely on expert users' relevance judgments comparing suggested tag terms and expert metadata terms. The results suggest that processing of user tags using the two measurements successfully identifies the terms that represent the topic categories of web resource content. The suggested tag terms can be further examined in various usages as semantic metadata for the resources.

0.004355476 = product of:
  0.026132854 = sum of:
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 101, 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=101)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Social tagging, hashtags, and geotags are used across a variety of platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, WordPress, Instagram) in different countries and cultures. This book, representing researchers and practitioners across different information professions, explores how social tags can link content across a variety of environments. Most studies of social tagging have tended to focus on applications like library catalogs, blogs, and social bookmarking sites. This book, in setting out a theoretical background and the use of a series of case studies, explores the role of hashtags as a form of linked data?without the complex implementation of RDF and other Semantic Web technologies.

0.0040118583 = product of:
  0.024071148 = sum of:
    0.024071148 = product of:
      0.048142295 = sum of:
        0.048142295 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048142295 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Pages

S.15-22

0.0037719528 = product of:
  0.022631716 = sum of:
    0.022631716 = weight(_text_:web in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022631716 = score(doc=3054,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

- 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

0.0034843804 = product of:
  0.020906283 = sum of:
    0.020906283 = weight(_text_:web in 4221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020906283 = score(doc=4221,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 4221, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4221)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study explored how user-supplied tags can be applied to designing a thesaurus that reflects the unique features of image documents. Tags from the popular image-sharing Web site Flickr were examined in terms of two central components of a thesaurus-selected concepts and their semantic relations-as well as the features of image documents. Shatford's facet category and Rosch et al.'s basic-level theory were adopted for examining concepts to be included in a thesaurus. The results suggested that the best approach to Color and Generic category descriptors is to focus on basic-level terms and to include frequently used superordinate- and subordinate-level terms. In the Abstract category, it was difficult to specify a set of abstract terms that can be used consistently and dominantly, so it was suggested to enhance browsability using hierarchical and associative relations. Study results also indicate a need for greater inclusion of Specific category terms, which were shown to be an important tool in establishing related tags. Regarding semantic relations, the study indicated that in the identification of related terms, it is important that descriptors not be limited only to the category in which a main entry belongs but broadened to include terms from other categories as well. Although future studies are needed to ensure the effectiveness of this user-oriented approach, this study yielded promising results, demonstrating that user-supplied tags can be a helpful tool in selecting concepts to be included in a thesaurus and in identifying semantic relations among the selected concepts. It is hoped that the results of this study will provide a practical guideline for designing a thesaurus for image documents that takes into account both the unique features of these documents and the unique information-seeking behaviors of general users.

0.0030797864 = product of:
  0.018478718 = sum of:
    0.018478718 = weight(_text_:web in 4519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018478718 = score(doc=4519,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.12748088 = fieldWeight in 4519, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4519)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Das DFG-Projekt "Collaborative Tagging als neue Form der Sacherschließung" Im Oktober 2008 startete an der Universitätsbibliothek Mannheim das DFG-Projekt "Collaborative Tagging als neue Form der Sacherschließung". Über zwei Jahre hinweg wurde untersucht, welchen Beitrag das Web-2.0-Phänomen Tagging für die inhaltliche Erschließung von bisher nicht erschlossenen und somit der Nutzung kaum zugänglichen Dokumenten leisten kann. Die freie Vergabe von Schlagwörtern in Datenbanken durch die Nutzer selbst hatte sich bereits auf vielen Plattformen als äußerst effizient herausgestellt, insbesondere bei Inhalten, die einer automatischen Erschließung nicht zugänglich sind. So wurden riesige Mengen von Bildern (FlickR), Filmen (YouTube) oder Musik (LastFM) durch das Tagging recherchierbar und identifizierbar gemacht. Die Fragestellung des Projektes war entsprechend, ob und in welcher Qualität sich durch das gleiche Verfahren beispielsweise Dokumente auf Volltextservern oder in elektronischen Zeitschriften erschließen lassen. Für die Beantwortung dieser Frage, die ggf. weitreichende Konsequenzen für die Sacherschließung durch Fachreferenten haben konnte, wurde ein ganzer Komplex von Teilfragen und Teilschritten ermittelt bzw. konzipiert. Im Kern ging es aber in allen Untersuchungsschritten immer um zwei zentrale Dimensionen, nämlich um die "Akzeptanz" und um die "Qualität" des Taggings. Die Akzeptanz des Taggings wurde zunächst bei den Studierenden und Wissenschaftlern der Universität Mannheim evaluiert. Für bestimmte Zeiträume wurden Tagging-Systeme in unterschiedlichen Ausprägungen an die Recherchedienste der Universitätsbibliothek angebunden. Die Akzeptanz der einzelnen Systemausprägungen konnte dann durch die Analyse von Logfiles und durch Datenbankabfragen ausgewertet werden. Für die Qualität der Erschließung wurde auf einen Methodenmix zurückgegriffen, der im Verlauf des Projektes immer wieder an aktuelle Entwicklungen und an die Ergebnisse aus den vorangegangenen Analysen angepaßt wurde. Die Tags wurden hinsichtlich ihres Beitrags zum Information Retrieval mit Verfahren der automatischen Indexierung von Volltexten sowie mit der Erschließung durch Fachreferenten verglichen. Am Schluss sollte eine gut begründete Empfehlung stehen, wie bisher nicht erschlossene Dokumente am besten indexiert werden können: automatisch, mit Tags oder durch eine Kombination von beiden Verfahren.

Object

Web 2.0

0.0030488332 = product of:
  0.018292999 = sum of:
    0.018292999 = weight(_text_:web in 4273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018292999 = score(doc=4273,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 4273, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4273)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Die Spielzeuge des Web 2.0 werden in solchen Situationen trotzdem zu Nachrichtenkanälen, ungefiltert und schneller als etablierte Medien. Ihr Reiz ist gerade die Subjektivität, die Emotionalität und die Vernetzung von Tausenden Personen rund um den Erdball. Die reinen Fakten gibt es woanders. "Social Media" heißen solche Dienste schließlich. Trotzdem werden sie ernstgenommen. Nach Untersuchungen der Harvard-Soziologin Shoshana Zuboff glauben die Menschen heutzutage in erster Linie ihren Freunden, während das Vertrauen in Unternehmen und Institutionen abnimmt. Übertragen auf das Internet bedeutet das: Wenn Informationen von Freunden aus der jeweiligen Online-Community stammen, vertraut man ihnen schneller, als wenn sie von einem unbekannten Redakteur irgendeiner Zeitung verbreitet werden. Im Fall Bombay zeigten die Reaktionen vieler sogenannter "Follower", also Leser von Twitter-Einträgen einer Person: Hier wird nicht viel hinterfragt. Hier wird kopiert und weitergeschickt, an die eigenen Follower. Für manche markiert der 24-stündige Sturm von 140-Zeichen-Meldungen nicht weniger als eine "epochale Veränderung des Nachrichtenflusses". So diktierte es etwa der New Yorker Journalismus-Professor Jeff Jarvis dem Handelsblatt-Blogger Thomas Knüwer. Der legt sich, wie auch der prominenteste TechBlogger der USA, Michael Arrington von TechCrunch, fest: "Der heutige Tag wird ein Durchbruch werden auf dem Weg Twitters zum Massenmedium.""

0.0030088935 = product of:
  0.01805336 = sum of:
    0.01805336 = product of:
      0.03610672 = sum of:
        0.03610672 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610672 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0030088935 = product of:
  0.01805336 = sum of:
    0.01805336 = product of:
      0.03610672 = sum of:
        0.03610672 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610672 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

¬Die Kraft der digitalen Unordnung: 32. Arbeits- und Fortbildungstagung der ASpB e. V., Sektion 5 im Deutschen Bibliotheksverband, 22.-25. September 2009 in der Universität Karlsruhe. Hrsg: Jadwiga Warmbrunn u.a

0.0025074114 = product of:
  0.0150444675 = sum of:
    0.0150444675 = product of:
      0.030088935 = sum of:
        0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030088935 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, 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=2648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.0025074114 = product of:
  0.0150444675 = sum of:
    0.0150444675 = product of:
      0.030088935 = sum of:
        0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030088935 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2891, 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=2891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

21. 4.2016 11:23:22

0.0025074114 = product of:
  0.0150444675 = sum of:
    0.0150444675 = product of:
      0.030088935 = sum of:
        0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030088935 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5492, 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=5492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22