Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Folksonomies"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Chan, L.M.: Social bookmarking and subject indexing (2011) 0.02
    0.018958557 = product of:
      0.05687567 = sum of:
        0.05687567 = product of:
          0.11375134 = sum of:
            0.11375134 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.11375134 = score(doc=1806,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.59810436 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Subject access: preparing for the future. Conference on August 20 - 21, 2009 in Florence, the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section sponsored an IFLA satellite conference entitled "Looking at the Past and Preparing for the Future". Eds.: P. Landry et al
  2. Rafferty, P.: Tagging (2018) 0.01
    0.009384007 = product of:
      0.02815202 = sum of:
        0.02815202 = product of:
          0.05630404 = sum of:
            0.05630404 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05630404 = score(doc=4647,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.29604656 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    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.
  3. Peters, I.: Folksonomies, social tagging and information retrieval (2011) 0.01
    0.0080434345 = product of:
      0.024130303 = sum of:
        0.024130303 = product of:
          0.048260607 = sum of:
            0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048260607 = score(doc=4907,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Services in Web 2.0 generate a large quantity of information, distributed over a range of resources (e.g. photos, URLs, videos) and integrated into different platforms (e.g. social bookmarking systems, sharing platforms (Peters, 2009). To adequately use this mass of information and to extract it from the platforms, users must be equipped with suitable tools and knowledge. After all, the best information is useless if users cannot find it: 'The model of information consumption relies on the information being found' (Vander Wal, 2004). In Web 2.0, the retrieval component has been established through so-called folksonomies (Vander Wal, 2005a), which are considered as several combinations of an information resource, one or more freely chosen keywords ('tags') and a user. Web 2.0 services that use folksonomies as an indexing and retrieval tool are defined as 'collaborative information services' because they allow for the collaborative creation of a public database that is accessible to all users (registered, where necessary) via the tags of the folksonomy (Ding et al., 2009; Heymann, Paepcke and Garcia-Molina, 2010).
  4. Moreiro-González, J.-A.; Bolaños-Mejías, C.: Folksonomy indexing from the assignment of free tags to setup subject : a search analysis into the domain of legal history (2018) 0.01
    0.0067028617 = product of:
      0.020108584 = sum of:
        0.020108584 = product of:
          0.04021717 = sum of:
            0.04021717 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04021717 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.049684696 = queryNorm
                0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)