Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Folksonomies"
  1. Munk, T.B.; Moerk, K.: Folksonomies, tagging communities, and tagging strategies : an empirical study (2007) 0.03 
    0.031794466 = product of:
  0.12717786 = sum of:
    0.12717786 = weight(_text_:frequency in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12717786 = score(doc=1091,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.46005818 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The subject of this article is folksonomies on the Internet. One of the largest folksonomies on the Internet in terms of number of users and tagged websites is the computer program del.icio.us, where more than 100,000 people have tagged the websites that they and others find using their own keywords. How this is done in practice and the patterns to be found are the focus of this article. The empirical basis is the collection of 76,601 different keywords with a total frequency of 178,215 from 500 randomly chosen taggers on del.icio.us at the end of 2005. The keywords collected were then analyzed quantitatively statistically by uncovering their frequency and percentage distribution and through a statistical correspondence analysis in order to uncover possible patterns in the users' tags. Subsequently, a qualitative textual analysis of the tags was made in order to find out by analysis which tagging strategies are represented in the data material. This led to four conclusions. 1) the distribution of keywords follows classic power law; 2) distinct tagging communities are identifiable; 3) the most frequently used tags are situated on a general-specific axis; and 4) nine distinct tagging strategies are observed. These four conclusions are put into perspective collectively in respect of a number of more general and theoretical considerations concerning folksonomies and the classification systems of the future.
  2. Carlin, S.A.: Schlagwortvergabe durch Nutzende (Tagging) als Hilfsmittel zur Suche im Web : Ansatz, Modelle, Realisierungen (2006) 0.01 
    0.014115169 = product of:
  0.056460675 = sum of:
    0.056460675 = weight(_text_:term in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056460675 = score(doc=2476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.25776416 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  3. Fiala, S.: Deutscher Bibliothekartag Leipzig 2007 : Sacherschließung - Informationsdienstleistung nach Mass (2007) 0.01 
    0.011977118 = product of:
  0.047908474 = sum of:
    0.047908474 = weight(_text_:term in 415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047908474 = score(doc=415,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.21872015 = fieldWeight in 415, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=415)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    ""Sacherschließung - Informationsdienstleistung nach Maß": unter diesem Titel fand am 3. Leipziger Kongress für Information und Bibliothek ("Information und Ethik") eine sehr aufschlussreiche Vortragsreihe statt. Neue Projekte der Vernetzung unterschiedlichst erschlossener Bestände wurden vorgestellt. Auch die Frage, inwieweit man die Nutzerinnen und Nutzer in die Erschließung einbinden kann, wurde behandelt. Die Arbeit der Bibliothekare kann wertvolle Ausgangssituationen für alternative Methoden bieten. Das Zusammenwirken von intellektueller und maschineller Erschließung wird in Zukunft eine große Rolle spielen. Ein Ausweg, um die Erschließung der ständig wachsenden Informationsquellen zu ermöglichen, könnte eine arbeitsteilige Erschließung und eine Kooperation mit anderen Informationseinrichtungen darstellen. Im Mittelpunkt all dieser Überlegungen standen die Heterogenitätsprobleme, die sich durch unterschiedliche Erschließungsregeln, verschiedene Arbeitsinstrumente, verschiedene Sprachen und durch die unterschiedliche Bedeutung der Begriffe ergeben können. Der Nachmittag begann mit einem konkreten Beispiel: "Zum Stand der Heterogenitätsbehandlung in vascoda" (Philipp Mayr, Bonn und Anne-Kathrin Walter, Bonn). Das Wissenschaftsportal vascoda beinhaltet verschiedene Fachportale, und es kann entweder interdisziplinär oder fachspezifisch gesucht werden. Durch die verschiedenen Informationsangebote, die in einem Fachportal vorhanden sind und die in dem Wissenschaftsportal vascoda zusammengefasst sind, entsteht semantische Heterogenität. Oberstes Ziel ist somit die Heterogenitätsbehandlung. Die Erstellung von Crosskonkordanzen (zwischen Indexierungssprachen innerhalb eines Fachgebiets und zwischen Indexierungssprachen unterschiedlicher Fachgebiete) und dem sogenannten Heterogenitätsservice (Term-Umschlüsselungs-Dienst) wurden anhand dieses Wissenschaftsportals vorgestellt. "Crosskonkordanzen sind gerichtete, relevanzbewertete Relationen zwischen Termen zweier Thesauri, Klassifikationen oder auch anderer kontrollierter Vokabulare." Im Heterogenitätsservice soll die Suchanfrage so transformiert werden, dass sie alle relevanten Dokumente in den verschiedenen Datenbanken erreicht. Bei der Evaluierung der Crosskonkordanzen stellt sich die Frage der Zielgenauigkeit der Relationen, sowie die Frage nach der Relevanz der durch die Crosskonkordanz zusätzlich gefundenen Treffer. Drei Schritte der Evaluation werden durchgeführt: Zum einen mit natürlicher Sprache in der Freitextsuche, dann übersetzt in Deskriptoren in der Schlagwortsuche und zuletzt mit Deskriptoren in der Schlagwortsuche mit Einsatz der Crosskonkordanzen. Im Laufe des Sommers werden erste Ergebnisse der Evaluation der Crosskonkordanzen erwartet.
    Einen anderen sehr interessanten Ansatz bot der nächste Vortrag mit dem Titel: "Navigieren zwischen Schlagwort und Notation - Crisscross als Verbindung zwischen SWD und DDC" (Helga Karg, Frankfurt am Main und Guido Bee, Frankfurt am Main). Das Projekt Crisscross versucht durch Verbindung von SWD, LCSH, Rameau und DDC ein benutzergerechtes, multilinguales und thesaurusbasiertes Recherchevokabular zu erstellen. Es wurde eine Konkordanz zwischen SWD, LCSH und Rameau (Projekt MACS) erstellt und in den SWD-Sachschlagwörtern die DDCNotationen vermerkt. Durch die Angabe der Determiniertheit in der SWD kann zwischen "wesentlicher Übereinstimmung von SWD-Term und DDCKlasse", "SWD-Begriff spezifischer als die DDC-Klasse" und SWD-Begriff sowohl "nicht auf einen bestimmten Kontext beschränkt" als auch "SWDBegriff quer zur DDC-Hierarchie" unterschieden werden (siehe auch: Anzeige in MelviIClass).
  4. Broughton, V.: Automatic metadata generation : Digital resource description without human intervention (2007) 0.01 
    0.0095403055 = product of:
  0.038161222 = sum of:
    0.038161222 = product of:
      0.076322444 = sum of:
        0.076322444 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076322444 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:41:14
  5. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.01 
    0.005621679 = product of:
  0.022486717 = sum of:
    0.022486717 = product of:
      0.044973433 = sum of:
        0.044973433 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044973433 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  6. Wesch, M.: Information R/evolution (2006) 0.01 
    0.0055651786 = product of:
  0.022260714 = sum of:
    0.022260714 = product of:
      0.04452143 = sum of:
        0.04452143 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04452143 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1267, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1267)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    5. 1.2008 19:22:48
  7. Morrison, P.J.: Tagging and searching : search retrieval effectiveness of folksonomies on the World Wide Web (2008) 0.00 
    0.0047701527 = product of:
  0.019080611 = sum of:
    0.019080611 = product of:
      0.038161222 = sum of:
        0.038161222 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038161222 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    1. 8.2008 12:39:22
  8. Kim, H.H.: Toward video semantic search based on a structured folksonomy (2011) 0.00 
    0.004161717 = product of:
  0.016646868 = sum of:
    0.016646868 = product of:
      0.06658747 = sum of:
        0.06658747 = weight(_text_:based in 4350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06658747 = score(doc=4350,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.47078028 = fieldWeight in 4350, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4350)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This study investigated the effectiveness of query expansion using synonymous and co-occurrence tags in users' video searches as well as the effect of visual storyboard surrogates on users' relevance judgments when browsing videos. To do so, we designed a structured folksonomy-based system in which tag queries can be expanded via synonyms or co-occurrence words, based on the use of WordNet 2.1 synonyms and Flickr's related tags. To evaluate the structured folksonomy-based system, we conducted an experiment, the results of which suggest that the mean recall rate in the structured folksonomy-based system is statistically higher than that in a tag-based system without query expansion; however, the mean precision rate in the structured folksonomy-based system is not statistically higher than that in the tag-based system. Next, we compared the precision rates of the proposed system with storyboards (SB), in which SB and text metadata are shown to users when they browse video search results, with those of the proposed system without SB, in which only text metadata are shown. Our result showed that browsing only text surrogates-including tags without multimedia surrogates-is not sufficient for users' relevance judgments.
  9. Kim, H.L.; Scerri, S.; Breslin, J.G.; Decker, S.; Kim, H.G.: ¬The state of the art in tag ontologies : a semantic model for tagging and folksonomies (2008) 0.00 
    0.003975128 = product of:
  0.015900511 = sum of:
    0.015900511 = product of:
      0.031801023 = sum of:
        0.031801023 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031801023 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  10. Xie, H.; Li, X.; Wang, T.; Lau, R.Y.K.; Wong, T.-L.; Chen, L.; Wang, F.L.; Li, Q.: Incorporating sentiment into tag-based user profiles and resource profiles for personalized search in folksonomy (2016) 0.00 
    0.003531334 = product of:
  0.014125336 = sum of:
    0.014125336 = product of:
      0.056501344 = sum of:
        0.056501344 = weight(_text_:based in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056501344 = score(doc=2671,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.3994703 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In recent years, there has been a rapid growth of user-generated data in collaborative tagging (a.k.a. folksonomy-based) systems due to the prevailing of Web 2.0 communities. To effectively assist users to find their desired resources, it is critical to understand user behaviors and preferences. Tag-based profile techniques, which model users and resources by a vector of relevant tags, are widely employed in folksonomy-based systems. This is mainly because that personalized search and recommendations can be facilitated by measuring relevance between user profiles and resource profiles. However, conventional measurements neglect the sentiment aspect of user-generated tags. In fact, tags can be very emotional and subjective, as users usually express their perceptions and feelings about the resources by tags. Therefore, it is necessary to take sentiment relevance into account into measurements. In this paper, we present a novel generic framework SenticRank to incorporate various sentiment information to various sentiment-based information for personalized search by user profiles and resource profiles. In this framework, content-based sentiment ranking and collaborative sentiment ranking methods are proposed to obtain sentiment-based personalized ranking. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work of integrating sentiment information to address the problem of the personalized tag-based search in collaborative tagging systems. Moreover, we compare the proposed sentiment-based personalized search with baselines in the experiments, the results of which have verified the effectiveness of the proposed framework. In addition, we study the influences by popular sentiment dictionaries, and SenticNet is the most prominent knowledge base to boost the performance of personalized search in folksonomy.
  11. Chopin, K.: Finding communities : alternative viewpoints through weblogs and tagging (2008) 0.00 
    0.0032901266 = product of:
  0.013160506 = sum of:
    0.013160506 = product of:
      0.052642025 = sum of:
        0.052642025 = weight(_text_:based in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052642025 = score(doc=2341,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.37218451 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  12. Braun, M.: Lesezeichen zum Stöbern : "Social bookmark"-Seiten setzen auf die Empfehlungen ihrer Nutzer (2007) 0.00 
    0.003180102 = product of:
  0.012720408 = sum of:
    0.012720408 = product of:
      0.025440816 = sum of:
        0.025440816 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025440816 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    3. 5.1997 8:44:22
  13. Furner, J.: Folksonomies (2009) 0.00 
    0.0023542228 = product of:
  0.009416891 = sum of:
    0.009416891 = product of:
      0.037667565 = sum of:
        0.037667565 = weight(_text_:based in 3857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037667565 = score(doc=3857,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 3857, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3857)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  14. Shirky, C.: Ontology is overrated : categories, links, and tags (2005) 0.00 
    0.0020808585 = product of:
  0.008323434 = sum of:
    0.008323434 = product of:
      0.033293735 = sum of:
        0.033293735 = weight(_text_:based in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033293735 = score(doc=1265,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Today I want to talk about categorization, and I want to convince you that a lot of what we think we know about categorization is wrong. In particular, I want to convince you that many of the ways we're attempting to apply categorization to the electronic world are actually a bad fit, because we've adopted habits of mind that are left over from earlier strategies. I also want to convince you that what we're seeing when we see the Web is actually a radical break with previous categorization strategies, rather than an extension of them. The second part of the talk is more speculative, because it is often the case that old systems get broken before people know what's going to take their place. (Anyone watching the music industry can see this at work today.) That's what I think is happening with categorization. What I think is coming instead are much more organic ways of organizing information than our current categorization schemes allow, based on two units -- the link, which can point to anything, and the tag, which is a way of attaching labels to links. The strategy of tagging -- free-form labeling, without regard to categorical constraints -- seems like a recipe for disaster, but as the Web has shown us, you can extract a surprising amount of value from big messy data sets.
    Footnote
    This piece is based on two talks I gave in the spring of 2005 -- one at the O'Reilly ETech conference in March, entitled "Ontology Is Overrated", and one at the IMCExpo in April entitled "Folksonomies & Tags: The rise of user-developed classification." The written version is a heavily edited concatenation of those two talks.
  15. Sauperl, A.: UDC and Folksonomies (2010) 0.00 
    0.0020808585 = product of:
  0.008323434 = sum of:
    0.008323434 = product of:
      0.033293735 = sum of:
        0.033293735 = weight(_text_:based in 4069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033293735 = score(doc=4069,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 4069, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4069)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  16. Solskinnsbakk, G.; Gulla, J.A.; Haderlein, V.; Myrseth, P.; Cerrato, O.: Quality of hierarchies in ontologies and folksonomies (2012) 0.00 
    0.0020808585 = product of:
  0.008323434 = sum of:
    0.008323434 = product of:
      0.033293735 = sum of:
        0.033293735 = weight(_text_:based in 1034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033293735 = score(doc=1034,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 1034, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1034)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  17. Noruzi, A.: Folksonomies : (un)controlled vocabulary? (2006) 0.00 
    0.002059945 = product of:
  0.00823978 = sum of:
    0.00823978 = product of:
      0.03295912 = sum of:
        0.03295912 = weight(_text_:based in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03295912 = score(doc=404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Folksonomy, a free-form tagging, is a user-generated classification system of web contents that allows users to tag their favorite web resources with their chosen words or phrases selected from natural language. These tags (also called concepts, categories, facets or entities) can be used to classify web resources and to express users' preferences. Folksonomy-based systems allow users to classify web resources through tagging bookmarks, photos or other web resources and saving them to a public web site like Del.icio.us. Thus information about web resources and online articles can be shared in an easy way. The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the folksonomy tagging phenomenon (also called social tagging and social bookmarking) and explore some of the reasons why we need controlled vocabularies, discussing the problems associated with folksonomy.
  18. Huvila, I.: Aesthetic judgments in folksonomies as criteria for organising knowledge 0.00 
    0.002059945 = product of:
  0.00823978 = sum of:
    0.00823978 = product of:
      0.03295912 = sum of:
        0.03295912 = weight(_text_:based in 3540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03295912 = score(doc=3540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 3540, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3540)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Principles, justifications and their subjective nature are central issues of knowledge organisation research and practice. This study discusses folksonomies a source of aesthetic judgments and whether those judgments can provide justification for knowledge organisation. Using Flickr photosharing service as an example, the folksonomies are examined as potential source of collective judgments of a larger group of people with a special focus on everyday life aesthetics. The study is based on a visual analysis of clusters of photographs formed by Flickr with a set of common aesthetic adjectives.
  19. Rafferty, P.: Tagging (2018) 0.00 
    0.002059945 = product of:
  0.00823978 = sum of:
    0.00823978 = product of:
      0.03295912 = sum of:
        0.03295912 = weight(_text_:based in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03295912 = score(doc=4647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  20. Bar-Ilan, J.; Belous, Y.: Children as architects of Web directories : an exploratory study (2007) 0.00 
    0.0014713892 = product of:
  0.005885557 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Children are increasingly using the Web. Cognitive theory tells us that directory structures are especially suited for information retrieval by children; however, empirical results show that they prefer keyword searching. One of the reasons for these findings could be that the directory structures and terminology are created by grown-ups. Using a card-sorting method and an enveloping system, we simulated the structure of a directory. Our goal was to try to understand what browsable, hierarchical subject categories children create when suggested terms are supplied and they are free to add or delete terms. Twelve groups of four children each (fourth and fifth graders) participated in our exploratory study. The initial terminology presented to the children was based on names of categories used in popular directories, in the sections on Arts, Television, Music, Cinema, and Celebrities. The children were allowed to introduce additional cards and change the terms appearing on the 61 cards. Findings show that the different groups reached reasonable consensus; the majority of the category names used by existing directories were acceptable by them and only a small minority of the terms caused confusion. Our recommendation is to include children in the design process of directories, not only in designing the interface but also in designing the content structure as well.

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

Themes