Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

Voss, J.: Collaborative thesaurus tagging the Wikipedia way (2006) 0.03
```
0.027417867 = product of:
  0.13708933 = sum of:
    0.13708933 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13708933 = score(doc=620,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.5776348 = fieldWeight in 620, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=620)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
```
Abstract

This paper explores the system of categories that is used to classify articles in Wikipedia. It is compared to collaborative tagging systems like del.icio.us and to hierarchical classification like the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). Specifics and commonalities of these systems of subject indexing are exposed. Analysis of structural and statistical properties (descriptors per record, records per descriptor, descriptor levels) shows that the category system of Wikimedia is a thesaurus that combines collaborative tagging and hierarchical subject indexing in a special way.

Broughton, V.: Automatic metadata generation : Digital resource description without human intervention (2007) 0.02

0.016699877 = product of:
  0.08349938 = sum of:
    0.08349938 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08349938 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 22. 9.2007 15:41:14

Hayman, S.; Lothian, N.: Taxonomy directed folksonomies : integrating user tagging and controlled vocabularies for Australian education networks (2007) 0.01
```
0.013708933 = product of:
  0.06854466 = sum of:
    0.06854466 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06854466 = score(doc=705,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23732872 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = queryNorm
        0.2888174 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
```
Abstract

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

Wesch, M.: Information R/evolution (2006) 0.01

0.009741595 = product of:
  0.048707973 = sum of:
    0.048707973 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048707973 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1798465 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051357865 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 5. 1.2008 19:22:48

Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Languages

Themes