-
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)
0.05
0.050968554 = product of:
0.12742138 = sum of:
0.09316782 = weight(_text_:views in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09316782 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034253553 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = 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)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- There is a growing interest into how we represent and share tagging data in collaborative tagging systems. Conventional tags, meaning freely created tags that are not associated with a structured ontology, are not naturally suited for collaborative processes, due to linguistic and grammatical variations, as well as human typing errors. Additionally, tags reflect personal views of the world by individual users, and are not normalised for synonymy, morphology or any other mapping. Our view is that the conventional approach provides very limited semantic value for collaboration. Moreover, in cases where there is some semantic value, automatically sharing semantics via computer manipulations is extremely problematic. This paper explores these problems by discussing approaches for collaborative tagging activities at a semantic level, and presenting conceptual models for collaborative tagging activities and folksonomies. We present criteria for the comparison of existing tag ontologies and discuss their strengths and weaknesses in relation to these criteria.
- 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
-
Chopin, K.: Finding communities : alternative viewpoints through weblogs and tagging (2008)
0.02
0.018633565 = product of:
0.09316782 = sum of:
0.09316782 = weight(_text_:views in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09316782 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- 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.
-
Broughton, V.: Automatic metadata generation : Digital resource description without human intervention (2007)
0.02
0.016441705 = product of:
0.08220852 = sum of:
0.08220852 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08220852 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = 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
-
Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008)
0.01
0.009688368 = product of:
0.04844184 = sum of:
0.04844184 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04844184 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = 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)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- 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
-
Wesch, M.: Information R/evolution (2006)
0.01
0.009590995 = product of:
0.047954973 = sum of:
0.047954973 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047954973 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = 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
-
Morrison, P.J.: Tagging and searching : search retrieval effectiveness of folksonomies on the World Wide Web (2008)
0.01
0.008220852 = product of:
0.04110426 = sum of:
0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04110426 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = 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)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 1. 8.2008 12:39:22
-
Braun, M.: Lesezeichen zum Stöbern : "Social bookmark"-Seiten setzen auf die Empfehlungen ihrer Nutzer (2007)
0.01
0.0054805684 = product of:
0.027402842 = sum of:
0.027402842 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027402842 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = 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)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 3. 5.1997 8:44:22
