Search (43 results, page 1 of 3)

0.014835967 = product of:
  0.0890158 = sum of:
    0.0890158 = sum of:
      0.040415287 = weight(_text_:web in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040415287 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03505379 = queryNorm
          0.35328537 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
      0.048600513 = weight(_text_:seite in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048600513 = score(doc=4203,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19633847 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03505379 = queryNorm
          0.24753433 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Kollaborative Informationsdienste im Web 2.0 werden von den Internetnutzern nicht nur dazu genutzt, digitale Informationsressourcen zu produzieren, sondern auch, um sie inhaltlich mit eigenen Schlagworten, sog. Tags, zu erschließen. Dabei müssen die Nutzer nicht wie bei Bibliothekskatalogen auf Regeln achten. Die Menge an nutzergenerierten Tags innerhalb eines Kollaborativen Informationsdienstes wird als Folksonomy bezeichnet. Die Folksonomies dienen den Nutzern zum Wiederauffinden eigener Ressourcen und für die Recherche nach fremden Ressourcen. Das Buch beschäftigt sich mit Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten, Folksonomies als Methode der Wissensrepräsentation und als Werkzeug des Information Retrievals.

Footnote

Zugl.: Düsseldorf, Univ., Diss., 2009 u.d.T.: Peters, Isabella: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval Rez. in: IWP - Information Wissenschaft & Praxis, 61(2010) Heft 8, S.469-470 (U. Spree): "... Nachdem sich die Rezensentin durch 418 Seiten Text hindurch gelesen hat, bleibt sie unentschieden, wie der auffällige Einsatz langer Zitate (im Durchschnitt drei Zitate, die länger als vier kleingedruckte Zeilen sind, pro Seite) zu bewerten ist, zumal die Zitate nicht selten rein illustrativen Charakter haben bzw. Isabella Peters noch einmal zitiert, was sie bereits in eigenen Worten ausgedrückt hat. Redundanz und Verlängerung der Lesezeit halten sich hier die Waage mit der Möglichkeit, dass sich die Leserin einen unmittelbaren Eindruck von Sprache und Duktus der zitierten Literatur verschaffen kann. Eindeutig unschön ist das Beenden eines Gedankens oder einer Argumentation durch ein Zitat (z. B. S. 170). Im deutschen Original entstehen auf diese Weise die für deutsche wissenschaftliche Qualifikationsarbeiten typischen denglischen Texte. Für alle, die sich für Wissensrepräsentation, Information Retrieval und kollaborative Informationsdienste interessieren, ist "Folksonomies : Indexing and Retrieval in Web 2.0" trotz der angeführten kleinen Mängel zur Lektüre und Anschaffung - wegen seines beinahe enzyklopädischen Charakters auch als Nachschlage- oder Referenzwerk geeignet - unbedingt zu empfehlen. Abschließend möchte ich mich in einem Punkt der Produktinfo von de Gruyter uneingeschränkt anschließen: ein "Grundlagenwerk für Folksonomies".

Object

Web 2.0

RSWK

World Wide Web 2.0

Subject

World Wide Web 2.0

0.0135324355 = product of:
  0.040597305 = sum of:
    0.032609943 = product of:
      0.06521989 = sum of:
        0.06521989 = weight(_text_:web in 2059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06521989 = score(doc=2059,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 2059, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2059)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.00798736 = product of:
      0.023962079 = sum of:
        0.023962079 = weight(_text_:29 in 2059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023962079 = score(doc=2059,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2059, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2059)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The goal of the study presented in this article is to investigate to what extent the classification of a web page by a single genre matches the users' perspective. The extent of agreement on a single genre label for a web page can help understand whether there is a need for a different classification scheme that overrides the single-genre labelling. My hypothesis is that a single genre label does not account for the users' perspective. In order to test this hypothesis, I submitted a restricted number of web pages (25 web pages) to a large number of web users (135 subjects) asking them to assign only a single genre label to each of the web pages. Users could choose from a list of 21 genre labels, or select one of the two 'escape' options, i.e. 'Add a label' and 'I don't know'. The rationale was to observe the level of agreement on a single genre label per web page, and draw some conclusions about the appropriateness of limiting the assignment to only a single label when doing genre classification of web pages. Results show that users largely disagree on the label to be assigned to a web page.

Date

30. 7.2008 10:29:54

0.00968514 = product of:
  0.02905542 = sum of:
    0.017861202 = product of:
      0.035722405 = sum of:
        0.035722405 = weight(_text_:web in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035722405 = score(doc=2652,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.011194218 = product of:
      0.033582654 = sum of:
        0.033582654 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033582654 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1227524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.009513283 = product of:
  0.028539848 = sum of:
    0.02062434 = product of:
      0.04124868 = sum of:
        0.04124868 = weight(_text_:web in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04124868 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.007915508 = product of:
      0.023746524 = sum of:
        0.023746524 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023746524 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1227524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

More and more users index everything on their own in the web 2.0. There are services for links, videos, pictures, books, encyclopaedic articles and scientific articles. All these services are library independent. But must that really be? Can't libraries help with their experience and tools to make user indexing better? On the experience of a project from German language Wikipedia together with the German person authority files (Personen Namen Datei - PND) located at German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) I would like to show what is possible. How users can and will use the authority files, if we let them. We will take a look how the project worked and what we can learn for future projects. Conclusions - Authority files can have a role in the web 2.0 - there must be an open interface/ service for retrieval - everything that is indexed on the net with authority files can be easy integrated in a federated search - O'Reilly: You have to found ways that your data get more important that more it will be used

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

Object

Web 2.0

0.009493749 = product of:
  0.05696249 = sum of:
    0.05696249 = sum of:
      0.0144370375 = weight(_text_:web in 4273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0144370375 = score(doc=4273,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03505379 = queryNorm
          0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 4273, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4273)
      0.04252545 = weight(_text_:seite in 4273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04252545 = score(doc=4273,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19633847 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03505379 = queryNorm
          0.21659255 = fieldWeight in 4273, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4273)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

"Vinu schreibt: "Ich habe gerade eine weitere laute Explosion gehört. Das alles passiert nur zwei Gehminuten von meiner Wohnung entfernt." Netra schreibt: "Keine Panik. Nicht auf die Nachrichten hören. Die verbreiten Gerüchte und nehmen sie später zurück. Bleibt im Haus und bleibt ruhig." Vinu: "Die Schüsse kommen definitiv aus einer AK-47, und unsere Polizisten sind da draußen ohne schusssichere Westen und mit Scheiß-Gewehren." Sie waren näher dran als die meisten Journalisten - und sie berichteten unaufhörlich im Internet: Augenzeugen in Bombay nutzten beliebte Plattformen wie Twitter und Flickr, um aus erster Hand zu beschreiben, was in der indischen Metropole passierte. Auf der Seite Twitter.com schreiben User in 140 Zeichen, was sie gerade tun. Kaffee trinken, sich im Büro langweilen, eine Party suchen. Nun ist Twitter kurzzeitig zu einer Art Nachrichtenticker geworden: Über Filterbegriffe wie Bombay und Terror konnte jeder nachvollziehen, in welcher Lage sich die Menschen in der Stadt befanden, was sie von den Angriffen, Schießereien und Explosionen mitbekamen. Und wo sie bei Flickr.com ihre Bilder vom Geschehen hochgeladen haben. Das alles passierte beinahe in Echtzeit. Die Fotoplattform Flickr, sonst eher eine Sammelstelle für Urlaubsbilder und Material von ambitionierten Amateurfotografen, wurde zur Bilderstrecke über die Vorgänge in Bombay. Bewaffnete Terroristen, brennende Gebäude, verwüstete Hotellobbys und Blutlachen auf dem Boden - manche wagten sich gefährlich nahe an das Geschehen heran. Zumindest schien es so, denn ob die Bilder wirklich von denen gemacht wurden, die sie hochgeladen haben, war nicht immer klar. Manche dieser Bilder waren auch auf den Internetseiten von TV-Sendern zu sehen, und wer da von wem geklaut hat, ist schwer zu sagen. Auch im Wust der Twitter-Einträge, der sogenannten Tweets, ging unter, was authentisch ist, was einfach nur von anderen Medien abgeschrieben und hundertfach weitergetwittert wurde - und was schlicht und einfach unwahr ist. Blogger "Tom" (tomstechblog.com) aus der Umgebung von Los Angeles hat Botschaften entdeckt, nach denen auch das Marriott-Hotel in Bombay angegriffen wurde. Eine Falschmeldung. Für Menschen, deren Verwandte oder Freunde in dem Hotel wohnen, sei das extrem beängstigend, schreibt er.
Die Spielzeuge des Web 2.0 werden in solchen Situationen trotzdem zu Nachrichtenkanälen, ungefiltert und schneller als etablierte Medien. Ihr Reiz ist gerade die Subjektivität, die Emotionalität und die Vernetzung von Tausenden Personen rund um den Erdball. Die reinen Fakten gibt es woanders. "Social Media" heißen solche Dienste schließlich. Trotzdem werden sie ernstgenommen. Nach Untersuchungen der Harvard-Soziologin Shoshana Zuboff glauben die Menschen heutzutage in erster Linie ihren Freunden, während das Vertrauen in Unternehmen und Institutionen abnimmt. Übertragen auf das Internet bedeutet das: Wenn Informationen von Freunden aus der jeweiligen Online-Community stammen, vertraut man ihnen schneller, als wenn sie von einem unbekannten Redakteur irgendeiner Zeitung verbreitet werden. Im Fall Bombay zeigten die Reaktionen vieler sogenannter "Follower", also Leser von Twitter-Einträgen einer Person: Hier wird nicht viel hinterfragt. Hier wird kopiert und weitergeschickt, an die eigenen Follower. Für manche markiert der 24-stündige Sturm von 140-Zeichen-Meldungen nicht weniger als eine "epochale Veränderung des Nachrichtenflusses". So diktierte es etwa der New Yorker Journalismus-Professor Jeff Jarvis dem Handelsblatt-Blogger Thomas Knüwer. Der legt sich, wie auch der prominenteste TechBlogger der USA, Michael Arrington von TechCrunch, fest: "Der heutige Tag wird ein Durchbruch werden auf dem Weg Twitters zum Massenmedium.""

0.008999648 = product of:
  0.02699894 = sum of:
    0.017500332 = product of:
      0.035000663 = sum of:
        0.035000663 = weight(_text_:web in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035000663 = score(doc=3387,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009498609 = product of:
      0.028495826 = sum of:
        0.028495826 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028495826 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1227524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Libraries are the tools we use to learn and to answer our questions. The quality of our work depends, among others, on the quality of the tools we use. Recent research in digital libraries is focused, on one hand on improving the infrastructure of the digital library management systems (DLMS), and on the other on improving the metadata models used to annotate collections of objects maintained by DLMS. The latter includes, among others, the semantic web and social networking technologies. Recently, the semantic web and social networking technologies are being introduced to the digital libraries domain. The expected outcome is that the overall quality of information discovery in digital libraries can be improved by employing social and semantic technologies. In this chapter we present the results of an evaluation of social and semantic end-user information discovery services for the digital libraries.

Date

1. 8.2010 12:35:22

0.00853978 = product of:
  0.02561934 = sum of:
    0.0144370375 = product of:
      0.028874075 = sum of:
        0.028874075 = weight(_text_:web in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028874075 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.011182303 = product of:
      0.033546906 = sum of:
        0.033546906 = weight(_text_:29 in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033546906 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

In this article are compared traditional OPAC systems, enriched OPAC, social OPAC and social cataloguing systems.the aim is to underline new theoretical trends and to offer a taxonomic outline of such tools, according to the interaction level granted to users and to the chance to manage user's generated contents in the point of view of the application of web 2.0 tendecies to libraries, in the library 2.0. At the end, a brief review of softwares, both open source and not, that seem promising for this future application.

Date

29. 1.1996 17:18:10

0.00848153 = product of:
  0.050889175 = sum of:
    0.050889175 = product of:
      0.07633376 = sum of:
        0.038339324 = weight(_text_:29 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038339324 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
        0.037994437 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037994437 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1227524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

21. 6.2009 9:55:29

Pages

S.15-22

0.0073198117 = product of:
  0.021959435 = sum of:
    0.012374603 = product of:
      0.024749206 = sum of:
        0.024749206 = weight(_text_:web in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024749206 = score(doc=2271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2271, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009584831 = product of:
      0.028754493 = sum of:
        0.028754493 = weight(_text_:29 in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028754493 = score(doc=2271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2271, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2271)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Content

In investigating the use of social tagging for knowledge organization and sharing, this paper reports on two case studies. Each study examines how two disparate communities of practices utilize social tagging to disseminate information to other community members in the online environment. Through the use of these tags, community members may retrieve and view relevant Web sites and online videos. The first study looks at tagging within the Code4Lib community of practice. The second study examines the use of tagging on video sharing sites used by a community of French teenagers. Uses of social tagging to share information within these communities are analyzed and discussed, and recommendations for future study are provided.

Date

27.12.2008 11:20:29

0.007291071 = product of:
  0.021873213 = sum of:
    0.012374603 = product of:
      0.024749206 = sum of:
        0.024749206 = weight(_text_:web in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024749206 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009498609 = product of:
      0.028495826 = sum of:
        0.028495826 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028495826 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1227524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3601, 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=3601)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Some members of the library community, including the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, have suggested that libraries should open up their catalogs to allow users to add descriptive tags to the bibliographic data in catalog records. The web site LibraryThing currently permits its members to add such user tags to its records for books and therefore provides a useful resource to contrast with library bibliographic records. A comparison between the LibraryThing tags for a group of books and the library-supplied subject headings for the same books shows that users and catalogers approach these descriptors very differently. Because of these differences, user tags can enhance subject access to library materials, but they cannot entirely replace controlled vocabularies such as the Library of Congress subject headings.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.005434991 = product of:
  0.032609943 = sum of:
    0.032609943 = product of:
      0.06521989 = sum of:
        0.06521989 = weight(_text_:web in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06521989 = score(doc=2931,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

The Web of User Contribution - Foundations and Principles of the Social Web - Social Tagging - Rating and Filtering of Digital Resources Empirical Analysisof User Contributions - The Functional and Linguistic Structure of Tags - A Comparative Analysis of Tags for Different Digital Resource Types - Exploring Relevance Assessments in Social IR Systems - Exploring User Contribution Within a Higher Education Scenario - Summary of Empirical Results and Implications for Designing Social Information Systems User Contribution for a Participative Information System - Social Information Architecture for an Online Help System

Object

Web 2.0

RSWK

World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem
Social Tagging / Filter / Web log / World Wide Web 2.0

Subject

World Wide Web 2.0 / Benutzer / Online-Publizieren / Information Retrieval / Soziale Software / Hilfesystem
Social Tagging / Filter / Web log / World Wide Web 2.0

0.005380366 = product of:
  0.032282196 = sum of:
    0.032282196 = product of:
      0.06456439 = sum of:
        0.06456439 = weight(_text_:web in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06456439 = score(doc=4866,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.5643819 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In diesem Kapitel wird die zentrale Bedeutung der Annotation von Webdokumenten bzw. von Ressourcen in einem Semantischen Web diskutiert. Es wird auf aktuelle Methoden und Techniken in diesem Gebiet eingegangen, insbesondere wird das Phänomen "Social Tagging" als zentrales Element eines "Social Semantic Webs" beleuchtet. Weiters wird der Frage nachgegangen, welchen Mehrwert "Tag Recommender" beim Annotationsvorgang bieten, sowohl aus Sicht des End-Users aber auch im Sinne eines kollaborativen Ontologieerstellungsprozesses. Schließlich wird ein Funktionsprinzip für einen semi-automatischen Tag-Recommender vorgestellt unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Anwendbarkeit in einem Corporate Semantic Web.

Source

Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini

0.005300956 = product of:
  0.031805735 = sum of:
    0.031805735 = product of:
      0.0477086 = sum of:
        0.023962079 = weight(_text_:29 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023962079 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
        0.023746524 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023746524 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1227524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, 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=2648)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

20. 2.2009 10:29:07

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

0.004860714 = product of:
  0.014582142 = sum of:
    0.008249735 = product of:
      0.01649947 = sum of:
        0.01649947 = weight(_text_:web in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01649947 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0063324063 = product of:
      0.018997218 = sum of:
        0.018997218 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018997218 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1227524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2657, 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=2657)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Social tagging empowers users to categorize content in a personally meaningful way while harnessing their potential to contribute to a collaborative construction of knowledge (Vander Wal, 2007). In addition, social tagging systems offer innovative filtering mechanisms that facilitate resource discovery and browsing (Mathes, 2004). As a result, social tags may support online communication, informal or intended learning as well as the development of online communities. The purpose of this mixed methods study is to examine how undergraduate students participate in social tagging activities in order to learn about their motivations, behaviours and practices. A better understanding of their knowledge, habits and interactions with such systems will help practitioners and developers identify important factors when designing enhancements. In the first phase of the study, students enrolled at a Canadian university completed 103 questionnaires. Quantitative results focusing on general familiarity with social tagging, frequently used Web 2.0 sites, and the purpose for engaging in social tagging activities were compiled. Eight questionnaire respondents participated in follow-up semi-structured interviews that further explored tagging practices by situating questionnaire responses within concrete experiences using popular websites such as YouTube, Facebook, Del.icio.us, and Flickr. Preliminary results of this study echo findings found in the growing literature concerning social tagging from the fields of computer science (Sen et al., 2006) and information science (Golder & Huberman, 2006; Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006). Generally, two classes of social taggers emerge: those who focus on tagging for individual purposes, and those who view tagging as a way to share or communicate meaning to others. Heavy del.icio.us users, for example, were often focused on simply organizing their own content, and seemed to be conscientiously maintaining their own personally relevant categorizations while, in many cases, placing little importance on the tags of others. Conversely, users tagging items primarily to share content preferred to use specific terms to optimize retrieval and discovery by others. Our findings should inform practitioners of how interaction design can be tailored for different tagging systems applications, and how these findings are positioned within the current debate surrounding social tagging among the resource discovery community. We also hope to direct future research in the field to place a greater importance on exploring the benefits of tagging as a socially-driven endeavour rather than uniquely as a means of managing information.

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

0.004860714 = product of:
  0.014582142 = sum of:
    0.008249735 = product of:
      0.01649947 = sum of:
        0.01649947 = weight(_text_:web in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01649947 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0063324063 = product of:
      0.018997218 = sum of:
        0.018997218 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018997218 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1227524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, 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=2666)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.

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

0.004860714 = product of:
  0.014582142 = sum of:
    0.008249735 = product of:
      0.01649947 = sum of:
        0.01649947 = weight(_text_:web in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01649947 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0063324063 = product of:
      0.018997218 = sum of:
        0.018997218 = weight(_text_:22 in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018997218 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1227524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2881, 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=2881)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

My keynote at the workshop "Social Tagging in Knowledge Organization" was a great opportunity to make and share new experiences. For the first time ever, I sat in my office at home and gave a live web video presentation to a conference audience elsewhere on the globe. At the same time, it was also an opportunity to premier my conceptual model "Matrix of Perception" to an interdisciplinary audience of researchers and practitioners with a variety of backgrounds - reaching from philosophy, psychology, pedagogy and computation to library science and economics. The interdisciplinary approach of the conference is also mirrored in the structure of this volume, with articles on the theoretical background, the empirical analysis and the potential applications of tagging, for instance in university libraries, e-learning, or e-commerce. As an introduction to the topic of "social tagging" I would like to draw your attention to some foundation concepts of the phenomenon I have racked my brain with for the last few month. One thing I have seen missing in recent research and system development is a focus on the variety of user perspectives in social tagging. Different people perceive tagging in complex variegated ways and use this form of knowledge organization for a variety of purposes. My analytical interest lies in understanding the personas and patterns in tagging systems and in being able to label their different perceptions. To come up with a concise picture of user expectations, needs and activities, I have broken down the perspectives on tagging into two different categories, namely "faces" and "depth". When put together, they form the "Matrix of Perception" - a nuanced view of stakeholders and their respective levels of participation.

Date

22. 6.2009 9:15:45

0.004812346 = product of:
  0.028874075 = sum of:
    0.028874075 = product of:
      0.05774815 = sum of:
        0.05774815 = weight(_text_:web in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05774815 = score(doc=2884,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Social Tagging als freie Verschlagwortung durch Nutzer im Web wird immer häufiger mit der Idee des Semantic Web in Zusammenhang gebracht. Wie beide Konzepte in der Praxis konkret zusammenkommen sollen, bleibt jedoch meist unklar. Dieser Artikel soll hier Aufklärung leisten, indem die Kombination von Social Tagging und Semantic Web in Form von Semantic Tagging mit dem Simple Knowledge Organisation System dargestellt und auf die konkreten Möglichkeiten, Vorteile und offenen Fragen der Semantischen Indexierung eingegangen wird.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0047629876 = product of:
  0.028577924 = sum of:
    0.028577924 = product of:
      0.057155848 = sum of:
        0.057155848 = weight(_text_:web in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057155848 = score(doc=4873,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.49962097 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

BibSonomy ist ein kooperatives Verschlagwortungssystem (Social Bookmarking System), betrieben vom Fachgebiet Wissensverarbeitung der Universität Kassel. Es erlaubt das Speichern und Organisieren von Web-Lesezeichen und Metadaten für wissenschaftliche Publikationen. In diesem Beitrag beschreiben wir die von BibSonomy bereitgestellte Funktionalität, die dahinter stehende Architektur sowie das zugrunde liegende Datenmodell. Ferner erläutern wir Anwendungsbeispiele und gehen auf Methoden zur Analyse der in BibSonomy und ähnlichen Systemen enthaltenen Daten ein.

Source

Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini

0.0046117427 = product of:
  0.027670456 = sum of:
    0.027670456 = product of:
      0.055340912 = sum of:
        0.055340912 = weight(_text_:web in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055340912 = score(doc=4323,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

Issue

Ergebnisse des Fachprojektes "Einbindung von Frage-Antwort-Diensten in die Web-Suche" am Department Information der Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften Hamburg (WS 2007/2008).

RSWK

World Wide Web 2.0 / Suchmaschine

Subject

World Wide Web 2.0 / Suchmaschine

0.0041248677 = product of:
  0.024749206 = sum of:
    0.024749206 = product of:
      0.049498413 = sum of:
        0.049498413 = weight(_text_:web in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049498413 = score(doc=3290,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Social tagging is one of the major phenomena transforming the World Wide Web from a static platform into an actively shared information space. This paper addresses various aspects of social tagging, including different views on the nature of social tagging, how to make use of social tags, and how to bridge social tagging with other Web functionalities; it discusses the use of facets to facilitate browsing and searching of tagging data; and it presents an analogy between bibliometrics and tagometrics, arguing that established bibliometric methodologies can be applied to analyze tagging behavior on the Web. Based on the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO), a Web crawler was built to harvest tag data from Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube in September 2007. In total, 1.8 million objects, including bookmarks, photos, and videos, 3.1 million taggers, and 12.1 million tags were collected and analyzed. Some tagging patterns and variations are identified and discussed.