Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.027863272 = product of:
  0.083589815 = sum of:
    0.083589815 = product of:
      0.16717963 = sum of:
        0.16717963 = weight(_text_:indexing in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16717963 = score(doc=752,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.8790302 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is two-fold: to examine three models of subject indexing (i.e. expert-led indexing, author-generated indexing, and user-orientated indexing); and to compare and contrast two user-orientated indexing approaches (i.e. the theoretically-based Democratic Indexing project, and Flickr, a working system for describing photographs). Design/methodology/approach - The approach to examining Flickr and Democratic Indexing is evaluative. The limitations of Flickr are described and examples are provided. The Democratic Indexing approach, which the authors believe offers a method of marshalling a "free" user-indexed archive to provide useful retrieval functions, is described. Findings - The examination of both Flickr and the Democratic Indexing approach suggests that, despite Shirky's claim of philosophical paradigm shifting for social tagging, there is a residing doubt amongst information professionals that self-organising systems can work without there being some element of control and some form of "representative authority". Originality/value - This paper contributes to the literature of user-based indexing and social tagging.

0.025435574 = product of:
  0.07630672 = sum of:
    0.07630672 = product of:
      0.15261345 = sum of:
        0.15261345 = weight(_text_:indexing in 849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15261345 = score(doc=849,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.80244124 = fieldWeight in 849, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this research is to describe the development of an indexing template to guide the indexing of images using keywords. The template is designed to be used for indexing the image collection held at The Children's Society. Design/methodology/approach - A facet matrix based on analysis of existing studies was used to identify the most popular user query facets from user studies in the literature. A total of 33 archivists were surveyed regarding indexing practice and indexing wish-lists. The results of these investigative activities were synthesised to produce an indexing template. Findings - The results of this study suggest that indexing general entities and activities could be more comprehensive than is currently the case. A practical indexing template is proposed for organisations wishing to index image collections. Originality/value - This article reports a project undertaken on behalf of The Children's Society to design an image indexing system for use with their photographic collection. Its method of enquiry is based on an application and interpretation of the Shatford-Ensor matrix.

0.018768014 = product of:
  0.05630404 = sum of:
    0.05630404 = product of:
      0.11260808 = sum of:
        0.11260808 = weight(_text_:indexing in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11260808 = score(doc=119,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this paper, we consider three models of subject indexing, and compare and contrast two indexing approaches, the theoretically based democratic indexing project, and Flickr, a working system for describing photographs. We argue that, despite Shirky's (2005) claim of philosophical paradigm shifting for social tagging, there is a residing doubt amongst information professionals that self-organising systems can work without there being some element of control and some form of 'representative authority'.

0.013931636 = product of:
  0.041794907 = sum of:
    0.041794907 = product of:
      0.083589815 = sum of:
        0.083589815 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083589815 = score(doc=2670,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.4395151 = fieldWeight in 2670, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2670)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Issues regarding interpretation and the locus of meaning in the image sign (objectivist, constructionist or subjectivist) are clearly important in relation to reading images and are well documented in the literature (Svenonius, 1994; Shatford, 1984,1986; Layne, 1994; Enser, 1991, 1995; Rafferty Brown & Hidderley, 1996). The same issues of interpretation and reading pertain to image indexing tools which themselves are the result of choice, design and construction. Indexing becomes constrained and specific when a particular controlled vocabulary is adhered to. Indexing tools can often work better for one type of document than another. In this paper we discuss the different 'flavours' of three image retrieval tools: the Art and Architecture Thesaurus, Iconclass and the Library of Congress Thesaurus for Graphic Materials.