Search (32 results, page 1 of 2)

0.14403588 = product of:
  0.28807175 = sum of:
    0.22525334 = weight(_text_:soziale in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22525334 = score(doc=2364,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2780798 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045514934 = queryNorm
        0.8100313 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
    0.0628184 = product of:
      0.1256368 = sum of:
        0.1256368 = weight(_text_:software in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1256368 = score(doc=2364,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.6957995 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Inhalt: What is social software? -- Blogs -- Blogs in libraries : practical applications -- RSS -- Wikis -- Online communities -- Social networking -- Social bookmarking and collaborative filtering -- Tools for synchronous online reference -- The mobile revolution -- Podcasting -- Screencasting and vodcasting -- Gaming -- What will work @ your library -- Keeping up : a primer -- Future trends in social software.

RSWK

Bibliothek / Soziale Software
Soziale Software / Bibliothek

Subject

Bibliothek / Soziale Software
Soziale Software / Bibliothek

0.09882758 = product of:
  0.19765516 = sum of:
    0.15016891 = weight(_text_:soziale in 508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15016891 = score(doc=508,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2780798 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045514934 = queryNorm
        0.5400209 = fieldWeight in 508, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=508)
    0.047486246 = product of:
      0.09497249 = sum of:
        0.09497249 = weight(_text_:software in 508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09497249 = score(doc=508,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.525975 = fieldWeight in 508, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=508)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Wie schaffen es hunderttausende Menschen in ihrer Freizeit eine Enzyklopädie zu erstellen, die in der Qualität der seit Jahrhunderten renommierten Brockhaus-Enzyklopädie in nichts nachsteht und in der Quantität weit übertrifft? Warum veröffentlichen Millionen von Internetnutzern ihre Urlaubsbilder und Videos aus dem privaten Leben im Netz? Wieso funktioniert die Informationsversorgung durch Touristen und Privatleute oftmals besser als die Berichterstattung der großen Agenturen? Und warum versprechen sich Unternehmen wie Google oder die Holtzbrinck Gruppe so viel von derartigen Plattformen, dass deren Gründer über Nacht zu Millionären werden? Wie schaffte es eine australische Brauerei, vom Business Plan bis zur Produktionsplanung alle Prozesse von einer Internet-Community entwickeln zu lassen? Wie passt die lose Kollaboration im Netz zu mühsam ausgearbeiteten und über viele Jahrzehnte untersuchten Organisationsmodellen in Unternehmen? Was können Unternehmen von Wikipedia & Co lernen? Wikimanagement gibt nicht nur einen ausführlichen Überblick über die aktuelle Welt des Web 2.0, sondern stellt auch die Funktionsweise der Wikipedia und anderer Social Software-Systeme den wichtigsten organisationstheoretischen Ansätzen gegenüber. In Anwendungsfeldern wie Innovation, Projektmanagement, Marketing und vielen anderen wird deutlich gemacht, wie Unternehmen von Social Software-Technologie und -Philosophie lernen und profitieren können.

Content

Inhalt: I. Wie funktionieren Social Software-Angebote? II. Welchen Erklärungsbeitrag leisten bestehende Organisationsansätze und welche Schlüsse muss die Organisationslehre aus den Erfahrungen ziehen? III. Welches sind die Erfolgsfaktoren von Social Software und wie lassen sich Technologie und Erfolgsfaktoren in das Management übertragen und in Unternehmen nutzen?

RSWK

Management / Soziale Software / Leitbild
Unternehmen / Soziale Software (BVB)

Subject

Management / Soziale Software / Leitbild
Unternehmen / Soziale Software (BVB)

0.09746969 = product of:
  0.19493937 = sum of:
    0.15016891 = weight(_text_:soziale in 2306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15016891 = score(doc=2306,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2780798 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045514934 = queryNorm
        0.5400209 = fieldWeight in 2306, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2306)
    0.044770464 = product of:
      0.08954093 = sum of:
        0.08954093 = weight(_text_:software in 2306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08954093 = score(doc=2306,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.49589399 = fieldWeight in 2306, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2306)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Im Rahmen eines Projekts gingen Stu­dierende an der HAW Hamburg für ihre Auftraggeber Lycos Europe und T-Online der Frage nach, wie sich Inhalte aus sozialen Suchdiensten in die algorithmische Suche einbinden lassen. Dazu analysierten und verglichen sie die Vor- und Nachteile der Systeme, die Relevanz der Sucher­gebnisse, die Benutzerfreundlichkeit sowie die Qualität der Inhalte. Für soziale Software ergaben sich daraus bedeutende Verbesserungspotentiale. Der Text beschreibt die Ergebnisse und die Empfehlungen für Lycos IQ.

0.083501026 = product of:
  0.16700205 = sum of:
    0.13273181 = weight(_text_:soziale in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13273181 = score(doc=2931,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2780798 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045514934 = queryNorm
        0.47731552 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
    0.03427025 = product of:
      0.0685405 = sum of:
        0.0685405 = weight(_text_:software in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0685405 = score(doc=2931,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.37958977 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Die Entstehung von Social Software ermöglicht es Nutzern, in großem Umfang im Netz zu publizieren. Bisher liegen aber nur wenige empirische Befunde zu funktionalen Eigenschaften sowie Qualitätsaspekten von Nutzerbeiträgen im Kontext von Informationsmanagement und Information Retrieval vor. Diese Arbeit diskutiert grundlegende Partizipationsformen, präsentiert empirische Studien über Social Tagging, Blogbeiträge sowie Relevanzbeurteilungen und entwickelt Design und Implementierung einer "sozialen" Informationsarchitektur für ein partizipatives Onlinehilfesystem.

RSWK

World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem

Subject

World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem

0.07649052 = product of:
  0.15298104 = sum of:
    0.13139778 = weight(_text_:soziale in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13139778 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2780798 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045514934 = queryNorm
        0.47251827 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
    0.02158326 = product of:
      0.04316652 = sum of:
        0.04316652 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04316652 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, 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=2889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Als dynamische und einfache Form der Auszeichnung von Ressourcen kann sich Tagging im E-Learning positiv auf Partizipation, soziale Navigation und das Verständnis der Lernenden auswirken. Dieser Beitrag beleuchtet verschiedene Möglichkeiten des Einsatzes von Social Tagging in Lehrportalen und E-LearningKursen. Hierzu werden zunächst drei konkrete Anwendungsfälle dargestellt. Anschließend werden aus den Anwendungsfällen gewonnene Erkenntnisse für Lehr-/Lernszenarien zusammengefasst.

Date

21. 6.2009 12:22:44

0.039819542 = product of:
  0.15927817 = sum of:
    0.15927817 = weight(_text_:soziale in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15927817 = score(doc=4323,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2780798 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045514934 = queryNorm
        0.57277864 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Mit sozialen Suchdiensten - wie z. B. Yahoo Clever, Lycos iQ oder Mister Wong - ist eine Ergänzung und teilweise sogar eine Konkurrenz zu den bisherigen Ansätzen in der Web-Suche entstanden. Während Google und Co. automatisch generierte Trefferlisten bieten, binden soziale Suchdienste die Anwender zu Generierung der Suchergebnisse in den Suchprozess ein. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird in diesem Buch der Frage nachgegangen, inwieweit soziale Suchdienste mit traditionellen Suchmaschinen konkurrieren oder diese qualitativ ergänzen können. Der vorliegende Band beleuchtet die hier aufgeworfene Fragestellung aus verschiedenen Perspektiven, um auf die Bedeutung von sozialen Suchdiensten zu schließen.

0.032849446 = product of:
  0.13139778 = sum of:
    0.13139778 = weight(_text_:soziale in 2888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13139778 = score(doc=2888,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2780798 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045514934 = queryNorm
        0.47251827 = fieldWeight in 2888, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2888)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.028156668 = product of:
  0.11262667 = sum of:
    0.11262667 = weight(_text_:soziale in 2864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11262667 = score(doc=2864,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2780798 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045514934 = queryNorm
        0.40501565 = fieldWeight in 2864, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2864)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Der vorliegende Artikel beleuchtet und bewertet Social Tagging als aktuelles Phänomen des Web 2.0 im Kontext bekannter Techniken der semantischen Datenorganisation. Tagging wird in einen Raum verwandter Ordnungs- und Strukturierungsansätze eingeordnet, um die fundamentalen Grundlagen des Social Tagging zu identifizieren und zuzuweisen. Dabei wird Tagging anhand des Inclusive Universal Access Paradigmas bewertet, das technische als auch menschlich-soziale Kriterien für die inklusive und barrierefreie Bereitstellung und Nutzung von Diensten definiert. Anhand dieser Bewertung werden fundamentale Prinzipien des "Inclusive Social Tagging" hergeleitet, die der Charakterisierung und Bewertung gängiger Tagging-Funktionalitäten in verbreiteten Web-2.0-Diensten dienen. Aus der Bewertung werden insbesondere Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten von Social Tagging und unterstützenden Diensten erkennbar.

0.028156668 = product of:
  0.11262667 = sum of:
    0.11262667 = weight(_text_:soziale in 407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11262667 = score(doc=407,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2780798 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045514934 = queryNorm
        0.40501565 = fieldWeight in 407, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=407)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Kollaborationen mit Kollegen sind für fast alle Wissenschaftler bedeutend. Forscher bauen sich im Laufe ihrer Karriere ein soziales Netzwerk mit Kontakten zu anderen Wissenschaftlern mit ähnlichen Interessen und Forschungsschwerpunkten auf. Ein Empfehlungssystem könnte einer Person dabei helfen, geeignete Kollegen und neue Kooperationspartner zu finden. Für einen Wissenschaftler ist seine Reputation sehr wichtig, die mit Zitations- und Referenzdaten analysiert werden kann. Solche Daten können dazu dienen, Cluster mit ähnlichen Forschern zu ermitteln, die wiederum für ein Empfehlungssystem verwendet werden können. Darüber hinaus enthalten neue Dienste des sozialen Webs, wie Social-Bookmarking-Systeme, weitere Informationen über Wissenschaftler, auf Basis derer Personenvorschläge gemacht werden können. Im Folgenden wird ein Versuch beschrieben, verschiedene soziale Informationen über Wissenschaftler zu nutzen, um diesen relevante Kooperationspartner vorzuschlagen.

0.023463892 = product of:
  0.09385557 = sum of:
    0.09385557 = weight(_text_:soziale in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09385557 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2780798 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045514934 = queryNorm
        0.33751306 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.020794159 = product of:
  0.083176635 = sum of:
    0.083176635 = sum of:
      0.03957187 = weight(_text_:software in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03957187 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045514934 = queryNorm
          0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.043604765 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043604765 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045514934 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Folksonomy is the result of describing Web resources with tags created by Web users. Although it has become a popular application for the description of resources, in general terms Folksonomies are not being conveniently integrated in metadata. However, if the appropriate metadata elements are identified, then further work may be conducted to automatically assign tags to these elements (RDF properties) and use them in Semantic Web applications. This article presents research carried out to continue the project Kinds of Tags, which intends to identify elements required for metadata originating from folksonomies and to propose an application profile for DC Social Tagging. The work provides information that may be used by software applications to assign tags to metadata elements and, therefore, means for tags to be conveniently gathered by metadata interoperability tools. Despite the unquestionably high value of DC and the significance of the already existing properties in DC Terms, the pilot study show revealed a significant number of tags for which no corresponding properties yet existed. A need for new properties, such as Action, Depth, Rate, and Utility was determined. Those potential new properties will have to be validated in a later stage by the DC Social Tagging Community.

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

0.011731946 = product of:
  0.046927784 = sum of:
    0.046927784 = weight(_text_:soziale in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046927784 = score(doc=3054,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2780798 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045514934 = queryNorm
        0.16875653 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

- Theoretische Ansätze und empirische Untersuchungen Stefanie Panke & Birgit Gaiser: "With my head up in the clouds" - Social Tagging aus Nutzersicht Christoph Held& Ulrike Cress: Social Tagging aus kognitionspsychologischer Sicht Michael Derntl, Thorsten Hampel, Renate Motschnig & Tomas Pitner: Social Tagging und Inclusive Universal Access - Einsatz von Tagging in Hochschulen und Bibliotheken Christian Hänger: Good tags or bad tags? Tagging im Kontext der bibliothekarischen Sacherschließung Mandy Schiefner: Social Tagging in der universitären Lehre Michael Blank, Thomas Bopp, Thorsten Hampel & Jonas Schulte: Social Tagging = Soziale Suche? Andreas Harrer & Steffen Lohmann: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse Harald Sack & Jörg Waitelonis: Zeitbezogene kollaborative Annotation zur Verbesserung der inhaltsbasierten Videosuche - Kommerzielle Anwendungen von Tagging Karl Tschetschonig, Roland Ladengruber, Thorsten Hampel & Jonas Schulte: Kollaborative Tagging-Systeme im Electronic Commerce Tilman Küchler, Jan M. Pawlowski & Volker Zimmermann: Social Tagging and Open Content: A Concept for the Future of E-Learning and Knowledge Management? Stephan Schillenvein: Der .Business Case' für die Nutzung von Social Tagging in Intranets und internen Informationssystemen

0.008394462 = product of:
  0.03357785 = sum of:
    0.03357785 = product of:
      0.0671557 = sum of:
        0.0671557 = weight(_text_:software in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0671557 = score(doc=3113,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.3719205 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A longstanding area of study in indexing is the identification of factors affecting vocabulary usage and consistency. This topic has seen a recent resurgence with a focus on social tagging. Tagging data for scholarly articles made available by the social bookmarking Website CiteULike (www.citeulike.org) were used to test the use of inter-indexer/tagger consistency density values, based on a method developed by the authors by comparing calculations for highly tagged documents representing three subject areas (Science, Social Science, Social Software). The analysis revealed that the developed method is viable for a large dataset. The findings also indicated that there were no significant differences in tagging consistency among the three topic areas, demonstrating that vocabulary usage in a relatively new subject area like social software is no more inconsistent than the more established subject areas investigated. The implications of the method used and the findings are discussed.

0.0061666453 = product of:
  0.024666581 = sum of:
    0.024666581 = product of:
      0.049333163 = sum of:
        0.049333163 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049333163 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Pages

S.15-22

0.0059357807 = product of:
  0.023743123 = sum of:
    0.023743123 = product of:
      0.047486246 = sum of:
        0.047486246 = weight(_text_:software in 2278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047486246 = score(doc=2278,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 2278, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2278)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

This study examines the question of whether tags can be useful in the process of information retrieval. Participants were asked to search a social bookmarking tool specialising in academic articles (CiteULike) and an online journal database (Pubmed) in order to determine if users found tags were useful in their search process. The actions of each participants were captured using screen capture software and they were asked to describe their search process. The preliminary study showed that users did indeed make use of tags in their search process, as a guide to searching and as hyperlinks to potentially useful articles. However, users also made use of controlled vocabularies in the journal database.

0.0059357807 = product of:
  0.023743123 = sum of:
    0.023743123 = product of:
      0.047486246 = sum of:
        0.047486246 = weight(_text_:software in 2892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047486246 = score(doc=2892,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 2892, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Open Content is a promising concept for e-learning and knowledge management. It can improve sharing and re-using educational resources and create new business opportunities. However, in contrast to open source software, these opportunities have not yet been adopted by a wide community. This article discusses barriers and opportunities. The Content Explosion Model shows how content can be re-used and adapted to increase sharing and distributing Open Content. Social tagging is discussed, on the basis of an implementation example (SLIDESTAR), as a means of fostering content exchange on a content community platform.

0.0059357807 = product of:
  0.023743123 = sum of:
    0.023743123 = product of:
      0.047486246 = sum of:
        0.047486246 = weight(_text_:software in 4013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047486246 = score(doc=4013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 4013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Der Einsatz von Social Software in Bibliotheken und die damit angestrebte Erweiterung und Öffnung ihrer Angebote hat in den letzten Jahren viel Aufmerksamkeit auf sich gezogen. Für die Universitätsbibliothek Hildesheim wurde prototypisch ein Social Tagging Dienst umgesetzt und im Praxiseinsatz evaluiert (vgl. Heuwing 2008). Nutzer hatten dabei die Möglichkeit, für die im Online-Katalog vorhandenen Ressourcen selbst gewählte Schlagworte vergeben zu können. Das Angebot wurde von der Gruppe von Testnutzern positiv angenommen und auf vielfältige Weise eingesetzt. Eine Nutzerbefragung zeigt, dass die Motivation für die Nutzung vor allem im Austausch unter den Studierenden lag, während die Verwaltung persönlicher Informationsressourcen nur einer kleineren Gruppe wichtig war. Die Ergebnisse des Projektes verdeutlichen das Potential von Social Tagging an Universitäten und zeigen Möglichkeiten für die Integration mit lokalen Anwendungen und übergreifenden Diensten.

0.0049464838 = product of:
  0.019785935 = sum of:
    0.019785935 = product of:
      0.03957187 = sum of:
        0.03957187 = weight(_text_:software in 4064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03957187 = score(doc=4064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 4064, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The question of whether tags can be useful in the process of information retrieval was examined in this pilot study. Many tags are subject related and could work well as index terms or entry vocabulary; however, folksonomies also include relationships that are traditionally not included in controlled vocabularies including affective or time and task related tags and the user name of the tagger. Participants searched a social bookmarking tool, specialising in academic articles (CiteULike), and an online journal database (Pubmed) for articles relevant to a given information request. Screen capture software was used to collect participant actions and a semi-structured interview asked them to describe their search process. Preliminary results showed that participants did use tags in their search process, as a guide to searching and as hyperlinks to potentially useful articles. However, participants also used controlled vocabularies in the journal database to locate useful search terms and links to related articles supplied by Pubmed. Additionally, participants reported using user names of taggers and group names to help select resources by relevance. The inclusion of subjective and social information from the taggers is very different from the traditional objectivity of indexing and was reported as an asset by a number of participants. This study suggests that while users value social and subjective factors when searching, they also find utility in objective factors such as subject headings. Most importantly, users are interested in the ability of systems to connect them with related articles whether via subject access or other means.

0.0048967693 = product of:
  0.019587077 = sum of:
    0.019587077 = product of:
      0.039174154 = sum of:
        0.039174154 = weight(_text_:software in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039174154 = score(doc=1188,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.21695362 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Because, to paraphrase a pop music lyric from a certain rock and roll band of yesterday, "the Web is old, the Web is new, the Web is all, the Web is you", it seems like we might have to face up to some of these stark realities. With the introduction of new social software applications such as blogs, wikis, newsfeeds, social networks, and bookmarking tools (the subject of this paper), the claim that Shelley Powers makes in a Burningbird blog entry seems apposite: "This is the user's web now, which means it's my web and I can make the rules." Reinvention is revolution - it brings us always back to beginnings. We are here going to remind you of hyperlinks in all their glory, sell you on the idea of bookmarking hyperlinks, point you at other folks who are doing the same, and tell you why this is a good thing. Just as long as those hyperlinks (or let's call them plain old links) are managed, tagged, commented upon, and published onto the Web, they represent a user's own personal library placed on public record, which - when aggregated with other personal libraries - allows for rich, social networking opportunities. Why spill any ink (digital or not) in rewriting what someone else has already written about instead of just pointing at the original story and adding the merest of titles, descriptions and tags for future reference? More importantly, why not make these personal 'link playlists' available to oneself and to others from whatever browser or computer one happens to be using at the time? This paper reviews some current initiatives, as of early 2005, in providing public link management applications on the Web - utilities that are often referred to under the general moniker of 'social bookmarking tools'. There are a couple of things going on here: 1) server-side software aimed specifically at managing links with, crucially, a strong, social networking flavour, and 2) an unabashedly open and unstructured approach to tagging, or user classification, of those links.

0.0046249838 = product of:
  0.018499935 = sum of:
    0.018499935 = product of:
      0.03699987 = sum of:
        0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03699987 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, 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=3387)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.2010 12:35:22