Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011858032 = product of:
  0.04150311 = sum of:
    0.028444434 = weight(_text_:computer in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028444434 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
    0.013058676 = product of:
      0.026117353 = sum of:
        0.026117353 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026117353 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13500787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038553525 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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

0.009486426 = product of:
  0.033202488 = sum of:
    0.022755546 = weight(_text_:computer in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022755546 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.16150802 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
    0.010446941 = product of:
      0.020893881 = sum of:
        0.020893881 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020893881 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13500787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038553525 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Content

"Irgendwann ist es einfach zu viel Information. Einmal "Schokolade" bei Google eingeben und mal eben 9 870 000 Links zur Auswahl. "Pilgern - 800 000 Einträge. 21400 000 für "Hörbuch. Die Auswahl fällt schwer, und wer hat schon die Geduld, sich alle Seiten anzugucken. Am besten wäre es, irgendjemand könnte eine der, vielen Seiten empfehlen. Auf eben dieses Prinzip setzen immer mehr Internet-Seiten. Seiten wie www.mister-wong.de bestehen nur aus Empfehlungen von Nutzern für Nutzer. Immerhin vier empfehlen die Webseite zum Pralinenclub, acht Nutzer haben sich für www.theobroma-cacao.de ein Lesezeichen angelegt, beim Pilgern sind sich auch gleich einige Benutzer einig, welche Seite sie am liebsten zum Thema lesen und empfehlen. "Social bookmarks" - Lesezeichen, die man anderen zur Verfügung stellt - sind vor allem auf englischsprachigen Seiten zu finden. Mit Anbietern wie "Mister Wong" oder "Netselektor" können jetzt auch die Deutschen ihre Lieblingslesezeichen im Internet mit anderen teilen. "Bei den großen Suchmaschinen haben es gute Seiten oft schwer: Wenn sie nicht bei Yahoo oder Google nach der Suchanfrage ganz oben stehen, findet sie niemand", sagt "Mister Wong"Pressesprecher Christian Clawien. Für ihn ist das Konzept der "Social bookmarks" die ideale Alternative zur mechanischen Suchmaschine. Noch sind die Zahlen der Aktiven aber gering. 1,3 Millionen abgespeicherte Bookmarks verzeichnet "Mister Wong" seit der Gründung im März 2006. Vor allem Leute, die sowieso bereits einen guten Draht zum Internet haben, nutzten das Angebot, sagt Clawien. Langsam beginnt die Phase, wo Monetarisierung möglich ist." Langfristig soll auch Werbung auf der Seite erscheinen. Bei "www.netselektor.de", im November 2006 gegründet, sitzt zudem noch eine Redaktion vor dem Computer, die die abgelegten Lesezeichen der Nutzer durchforstet und die besten Empfehlungen noch mal als qualitativ hochwertig vorstellt. Nach und nach soll so in Zusammenarbeit mit den Usern ein "Best-of-Internet" entstehen. Natürlich nur mit den Internet-Juwelen, die einer Empfehlung würdig sind. Allerdings erreichen die "Social bookmark"-Seiten auch schnell ihre Grenzen: Nicht alle Stichworte bringen Ergebnisse, nicht immer sind die Vorlieben der Nutzer für Internet-Seiten nachvollziehbar, und noch reicht auch nicht die Anzahl der beteiligten Nutzer, um tatsächlich all die verborgenen Juwelen im riesigen weltweiten Netz zutage zu fördern. Originelles gibt es aber trotzdem schon jetzt - vom Karaoke Trainer bis zu www.dontclick.it", die Seite, die ohne Maus funktionieren soll."

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.0056888866 = product of:
  0.039822206 = sum of:
    0.039822206 = weight(_text_:computer in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039822206 = score(doc=251,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.28263903 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Catalogers have always had to balance adherence to cataloging rules and authority files with creating cataloging that is current and relevant to users. That dilemma has been complicated in new ways because of user demands in the world of Web 2.0. Standardized cataloging is crucial for communication between computer systems, but patrons now have an expectation of social interaction on the Internet, as evidenced by the popularity of folksonomy. After a description of traditional subject cataloging and folksonomy, this article discusses several institutions where subject cataloging is still used, but where patron interaction is also encouraged. User-generated tags can coexist with controlled vocabulary such as subject headings.

0.0044772606 = product of:
  0.031340823 = sum of:
    0.031340823 = product of:
      0.062681645 = sum of:
        0.062681645 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062681645 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13500787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038553525 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.004063491 = product of:
  0.028444434 = sum of:
    0.028444434 = weight(_text_:computer in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028444434 = score(doc=663,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The essence of folksonomies is user-created descriptive metadata as opposed to the traditional sender-determined descriptive metadata in taxonomies and faceted classification. We briefly introduce the beginning and principles of folksonomy and discuss the categorizing concept of folksonomies on the basis of the computer program del.icio.us. The selection of the metadata tagged is not accidental, rather tagging follows a pattern that proves to be the pattern for the classic power law, which, in many complex systems is seen to unfold as an imitation-dynamic that creates an asymmetry, where a few descriptive metadata are often reproduced and the majority seldom reproduced. In del.icio.us, it is the very broad and basic subject headings that are often reproduced and achieve power in the system - which in cognitive psychology is called cognitive basic categories - while the small, more specific subject headings are seldom reproduced. The law of power's underlying imitation-dynamic in del.icio.us is explained from the perspective of different theoretical paradigms, i.e. network, economy and cognition. The theorectical and speculative conclusion is that the law of power and asymmetry is biased by a cognitive economizing through a simplification principle in the users construction of descriptive metadata. Free tagging in folksonomies is comparable to empirical experiments in free categorization. Users often choose broad basic categories, because that requires the least cognitive effort. The consequences are that folksonomy is not necessarily a better, more realistic and cheaper method of creating metadata than that which can be generated through taxonomies, faceted classification or search algorithms. Folksonomy as a self-organizing system likely cannot create better and cheaper descriptive metadata.

0.004063491 = product of:
  0.028444434 = sum of:
    0.028444434 = weight(_text_:computer in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028444434 = score(doc=1091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14089422 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038553525 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The subject of this article is folksonomies on the Internet. One of the largest folksonomies on the Internet in terms of number of users and tagged websites is the computer program del.icio.us, where more than 100,000 people have tagged the websites that they and others find using their own keywords. How this is done in practice and the patterns to be found are the focus of this article. The empirical basis is the collection of 76,601 different keywords with a total frequency of 178,215 from 500 randomly chosen taggers on del.icio.us at the end of 2005. The keywords collected were then analyzed quantitatively statistically by uncovering their frequency and percentage distribution and through a statistical correspondence analysis in order to uncover possible patterns in the users' tags. Subsequently, a qualitative textual analysis of the tags was made in order to find out by analysis which tagging strategies are represented in the data material. This led to four conclusions. 1) the distribution of keywords follows classic power law; 2) distinct tagging communities are identifiable; 3) the most frequently used tags are situated on a general-specific axis; and 4) nine distinct tagging strategies are observed. These four conclusions are put into perspective collectively in respect of a number of more general and theoretical considerations concerning folksonomies and the classification systems of the future.

0.002638251 = product of:
  0.018467756 = sum of:
    0.018467756 = product of:
      0.036935512 = sum of:
        0.036935512 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036935512 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13500787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038553525 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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

0.0026117351 = product of:
  0.018282145 = sum of:
    0.018282145 = product of:
      0.03656429 = sum of:
        0.03656429 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03656429 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13500787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038553525 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

5. 1.2008 19:22:48

0.0022386303 = product of:
  0.015670411 = sum of:
    0.015670411 = product of:
      0.031340823 = sum of:
        0.031340823 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031340823 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13500787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038553525 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

1. 8.2008 12:39:22