Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.021217413 = product of:
  0.042434826 = sum of:
    0.042434826 = product of:
      0.08486965 = sum of:
        0.08486965 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08486965 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.01250248 = product of:
  0.02500496 = sum of:
    0.02500496 = product of:
      0.05000992 = sum of:
        0.05000992 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05000992 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.14-22

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.012376824 = product of:
  0.024753649 = sum of:
    0.024753649 = product of:
      0.049507298 = sum of:
        0.049507298 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049507298 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

5. 1.2008 19:22:48

0.0106243 = product of:
  0.0212486 = sum of:
    0.0212486 = product of:
      0.0424972 = sum of:
        0.0424972 = weight(_text_:online in 3857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0424972 = score(doc=3857,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 3857, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3857)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.010608707 = product of:
  0.021217413 = sum of:
    0.021217413 = product of:
      0.042434826 = sum of:
        0.042434826 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042434826 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 8.2008 12:39:22

0.009296263 = product of:
  0.018592525 = sum of:
    0.018592525 = product of:
      0.03718505 = sum of:
        0.03718505 = weight(_text_:online in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03718505 = score(doc=404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Folksonomy, a free-form tagging, is a user-generated classification system of web contents that allows users to tag their favorite web resources with their chosen words or phrases selected from natural language. These tags (also called concepts, categories, facets or entities) can be used to classify web resources and to express users' preferences. Folksonomy-based systems allow users to classify web resources through tagging bookmarks, photos or other web resources and saving them to a public web site like Del.icio.us. Thus information about web resources and online articles can be shared in an easy way. The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the folksonomy tagging phenomenon (also called social tagging and social bookmarking) and explore some of the reasons why we need controlled vocabularies, discussing the problems associated with folksonomy.

0.008840589 = product of:
  0.017681178 = sum of:
    0.017681178 = product of:
      0.035362355 = sum of:
        0.035362355 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035362355 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.0079682255 = product of:
  0.015936451 = sum of:
    0.015936451 = product of:
      0.031872902 = sum of:
        0.031872902 = weight(_text_:online in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031872902 = score(doc=309,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.007512515 = product of:
  0.01502503 = sum of:
    0.01502503 = product of:
      0.03005006 = sum of:
        0.03005006 = weight(_text_:online in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03005006 = score(doc=705,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.18968134 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.007072471 = product of:
  0.014144942 = sum of:
    0.014144942 = product of:
      0.028289884 = sum of:
        0.028289884 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028289884 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.0066401875 = product of:
  0.013280375 = sum of:
    0.013280375 = product of:
      0.02656075 = sum of:
        0.02656075 = weight(_text_:online in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02656075 = score(doc=289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.0066401875 = product of:
  0.013280375 = sum of:
    0.013280375 = product of:
      0.02656075 = sum of:
        0.02656075 = weight(_text_:online in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02656075 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0066401875 = product of:
  0.013280375 = sum of:
    0.013280375 = product of:
      0.02656075 = sum of:
        0.02656075 = weight(_text_:online in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02656075 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The behaviour and lexical quality of the folksonomies is examined by comparing two online social networks: Library-Thing (for books) and Flickr (for photos). We presented a case study that combines quantitative and qualitative elements, singularized by the lexical and functional framework. Our query was made by "Legal History" and by the synonyms "Law History" and "History of Law." We then examined the relevance, consistency and precision of the tags attached to the retrieved documents, in addition to their lexical composition. We identified the difficulties caused by free tagging and some of the folksonomy solutions that have been found to solve them. The results are presented in comparative tables, giving special attention to related tags within each retrieved document. Although the number of ambiguous or inconsistent tags is not very large, these do nevertheless represent the most obvious problem to search and retrieval in folksonomies. Relevance is high when the terms are assigned by especially competent taggers. Even with less expert taggers, ambiguity is often successfully corrected by contextualizing the concepts within related tags. A propinquity to associative and taxonomic lexical semantic knowledge is reached via contextual relationships.

0.00531215 = product of:
  0.0106243 = sum of:
    0.0106243 = product of:
      0.0212486 = sum of:
        0.0212486 = weight(_text_:online in 5900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0212486 = score(doc=5900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.13412495 = fieldWeight in 5900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Documentation of art museum collections has been traditionally written by and for art historians. To make art museum collections broadly accessible, and to enable art museums to engage their communities, means of access need to reflect the perspectives of other groups and communities. Social Tagging (the collective assignment of keywords to resources) and its resulting Folksonomy (the assemblage of concepts expressed in such a cooperatively developed system of classification) offer ways for art museums to engage with their communities and to understand what users of online museum collections see as important. Proof of Concept studies at The Metropolitan Museum of Art compared terms assigned by trained cataloguers and untrained cataloguers to existing museum documentation, and explored the potential for social tagging to improve access to museum collections. These preliminary studies, the results of which are reported here, have shown the potential of social tagging and folksonomy to open museum collections to new, more personal meanings. Untrained cataloguers identified content elements not described in formal museum documentation. Results from these tests - the first in the domain - provided validation for exploring social tagging and folksonomy as an access strategy within The Metropolitan Museum, motivation to proceed with a broader inter-institutional collaboration, and input into the development of a multi-institutional collaboration exploring tagging in art museums. Tags assigned by users might help bridge the semantic gap between the professional discourse of the curator and the popular language of the museum visitor. The steve collaboration (http://www.steve.museum) is building on these early studies to develop shared tools and research methods that enable social tagging of art museum collections and explore the utility of folksonomy for providing enhanced access to collections.