Search (63 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Farkas, M.G.: Social software in libraries : building collaboration, communication, and community online (2007) 0.05 
    0.05115793 = product of:
  0.17905274 = sum of:
    0.14784302 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14784302 = score(doc=2364,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.15681393 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.94279265 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
    0.031209724 = weight(_text_:internet in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031209724 = score(doc=2364,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.27677247 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    LCSH
    Libraries and the Internet
    RSWK
    Bibliothek / Soziale Software
    Bibliothek / Wiki
    Bibliothek / Web log
    Bibliothek / Podcasting
    Bibliothek / Virtuelle Gemeinschaft
    Soziale Software / Bibliothek
    Subject
    Bibliothek / Soziale Software
    Bibliothek / Wiki
    Bibliothek / Web log
    Bibliothek / Podcasting
    Bibliothek / Virtuelle Gemeinschaft
    Soziale Software / Bibliothek
    Libraries and the Internet
  2. Peters, I.: Folksonomies und kollaborative Informationsdienste : eine Alternative zur Websuche? (2011) 0.03 
    0.031817753 = product of:
  0.07424142 = sum of:
    0.030891342 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030891342 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
    0.02942481 = weight(_text_:internet in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02942481 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.2609436 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
    0.013925271 = product of:
      0.04177581 = sum of:
        0.04177581 = weight(_text_:29 in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04177581 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 343, 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=343)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    Abstract
    Folksonomies ermöglichen den Nutzern in Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten den Zugang zu verschiedenartigen Informationsressourcen. In welchen Fällen beide Bestandteile des Web 2.0 am besten für das Information Retrieval geeignet sind und wo sie die Websuche ggf. ersetzen können, wird in diesem Beitrag diskutiert. Dazu erfolgt eine detaillierte Betrachtung der Reichweite von Social-Bookmarking-Systemen und Sharing-Systemen sowie der Retrievaleffektivität von Folksonomies innerhalb von Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten.
    Pages
    S.29-53
    Source
    Handbuch Internet-Suchmaschinen, 2: Neue Entwicklungen in der Web-Suche. Hrsg.: D. Lewandowski
  3. Heckner, M.: Tagging, rating, posting : studying forms of user contribution for web-based information management and information retrieval (2009) 0.02 
    0.016287053 = product of:
  0.057004683 = sum of:
    0.038614176 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038614176 = score(doc=2931,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
    0.018390507 = weight(_text_:internet in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018390507 = score(doc=2931,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
    Theme
    Internet
  4. Vaidya, P.; Harinarayana, N.S.: ¬The comparative and analytical study of LibraryThing tags with Library of Congress Subject Headings (2016) 0.02 
    0.015666807 = product of:
  0.054833822 = sum of:
    0.032765217 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032765217 = score(doc=2492,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
    0.022068607 = weight(_text_:internet in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022068607 = score(doc=2492,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    The internet in its Web 2.0 version has given an opportunity among users to be participative and the chance to enhance the existing system, which makes it dynamic and collaborative. The activity of social tagging among researchers to organize the digital resources is an interesting study among information professionals. The one way of organizing the resources for future retrieval through these user-generated terms makes an interesting analysis by comparing them with professionally created controlled vocabularies. Here in this study, an attempt has been made to compare Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) terms with LibraryThing social tags. In this comparative analysis, the results show that social tags can be used to enhance the metadata for information retrieval. But still, the uncontrolled nature of social tags is a concern and creates uncertainty among researchers.
  5. Wang, J.; Clements, M.; Yang, J.; Vries, A.P. de; Reinders, M.J.T.: Personalization of tagging systems (2010) 0.02 
    0.015536638 = product of:
  0.05437823 = sum of:
    0.023168506 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023168506 = score(doc=4229,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4229, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4229)
    0.031209724 = weight(_text_:internet in 4229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031209724 = score(doc=4229,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.27677247 = fieldWeight in 4229, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4229)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Social media systems have encouraged end user participation in the Internet, for the purpose of storing and distributing Internet content, sharing opinions and maintaining relationships. Collaborative tagging allows users to annotate the resulting user-generated content, and enables effective retrieval of otherwise uncategorised data. However, compared to professional web content production, collaborative tagging systems face the challenge that end-users assign tags in an uncontrolled manner, resulting in unsystematic and inconsistent metadata. This paper introduces a framework for the personalization of social media systems. We pinpoint three tasks that would benefit from personalization: collaborative tagging, collaborative browsing and collaborative search. We propose a ranking model for each task that integrates the individual user's tagging history in the recommendation of tags and content, to align its suggestions to the individual user preferences. We demonstrate on two real data sets that for all three tasks, the personalized ranking should take into account both the user's own preference and the opinion of others.
  6. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.02 
    0.015418195 = product of:
  0.05396368 = sum of:
    0.019307088 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019307088 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
    0.03465659 = product of:
      0.051984888 = sum of:
        0.026109882 = weight(_text_:29 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026109882 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = 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)
        0.025875006 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025875006 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    The growing predominance of social semantics in the form of tagging presents the metadata community with both opportunities and challenges as for leveraging this new form of information content representation and for retrieval. One key challenge is the absence of contextual information associated with these tags. This paper presents an experiment working with Flickr tags as an example of utilizing social semantics sources for enriching subject metadata. The procedure included four steps: 1) Collecting a sample of Flickr tags, 2) Calculating cooccurrences between tags through mutual information, 3) Tracing contextual information of tag pairs via Google search results, 4) Applying natural language processing and machine learning techniques to extract semantic relations between tags. The experiment helped us to build a context sentence collection from the Google search results, which was then processed by natural language processing and machine learning algorithms. This new approach achieved a reasonably good rate of accuracy in assigning semantic relations to tag pairs. This paper also explores the implications of this approach for using social semantics to enrich subject metadata.
    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
  7. Regulski, K.: Aufwand und Nutzen beim Einsatz von Social-Bookmarking-Services als Nachweisinstrument für wissenschaftliche Forschungsartikel am Beispiel von BibSonomy (2007) 0.01 
    0.011496508 = product of:
  0.08047555 = sum of:
    0.08047555 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 4595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08047555 = score(doc=4595,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15681393 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.5131913 = fieldWeight in 4595, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4595)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Autoren wissenschaftlicher Artikel stehen unterschiedliche Wege bei der Recherche nach Hintergrundmaterial zu ihren Projekten zur Verfügung. Dass Social-Bookmarking-Dienste, die als Teil des Web 2.0 (O'Reilly, 2005) und der Bibliothek 2.0 (Danowski, 2006) genannt werden, eine sinnvolle Ergänzung zu den herkömmlichen Nachweisdatenbanken sein können, soll der vorliegende Artikel zeigen.
    Source
    Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 31(2007) H.2, S.177-184
  8. Heckner, M.; Mühlbacher, S.; Wolff, C.: Tagging tagging : a classification model for user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems (2007) 0.01 
    0.010444539 = product of:
  0.036555883 = sum of:
    0.021843476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021843476 = score(doc=533,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
    0.014712405 = weight(_text_:internet in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014712405 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.1304718 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Recently, a growing amount of systems that allow personal content annotation (tagging) are being created, ranging from personal sites for organising bookmarks (del.icio.us), photos (flickr.com) or videos (video.google.com, youtube.com) to systems for managing bibliographies for scientific research projects (citeulike.org, connotea.org). Simultaneously, a debate on the pro and cons of allowing users to add personal keywords to digital content has arisen. One recurrent point-of-discussion is whether tagging can solve the well-known vocabulary problem: In order to support successful retrieval in complex environments, it is necessary to index an object with a variety of aliases (cf. Furnas 1987). In this spirit, social tagging enhances the pool of rigid, traditional keywording by adding user-created retrieval vocabularies. Furthermore, tagging goes beyond simple personal content-based keywords by providing meta-keywords like funny or interesting that "identify qualities or characteristics" (Golder and Huberman 2006, Kipp and Campbell 2006, Kipp 2007, Feinberg 2006, Kroski 2005). Contrarily, tagging systems are claimed to lead to semantic difficulties that may hinder the precision and recall of tagging systems (e.g. the polysemy problem, cf. Marlow 2006, Lakoff 2005, Golder and Huberman 2006). Empirical research on social tagging is still rare and mostly from a computer linguistics or librarian point-of-view (Voß 2007) which focus either on the automatic statistical analyses of large data sets, or intellectually inspect single cases of tag usage: Some scientists studied the evolution of tag vocabularies and tag distribution in specific systems (Golder and Huberman 2006, Hammond 2005). Others concentrate on tagging behaviour and tagger characteristics in collaborative systems. (Hammond 2005, Kipp and Campbell 2007, Feinberg 2006, Sen 2006). However, little research has been conducted on the functional and linguistic characteristics of tags.1 An analysis of these patterns could show differences between user wording and conventional keywording. In order to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, a classification system for existing tags is needed.
    Therefore our main research questions are as follows: - Is it possible to discover regular patterns in tag usage and to establish a stable category model? - Does a specific tagging language comparable to internet slang or chatspeak evolve? - How do social tags differ from traditional (author / expert) keywords? - To what degree are social tags taken from or findable in the full text of the tagged resource? - Do tags in a research literature context go beyond simple content description (e.g. tags indicating time or task-related information, cf. Kipp et al. 2006)?
  9. Furner, J.: User tagging of library resources : toward a framework for system evaluation (2007) 0.01 
    0.00960356 = product of:
  0.03361246 = sum of:
    0.023168506 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023168506 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
    0.010443954 = product of:
      0.03133186 = sum of:
        0.03133186 = weight(_text_:29 in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03133186 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 703, 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=703)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Although user tagging of library resources shows substantial promise as a means of improving the quality of users' access to those resources, several important questions about the level and nature of the warrant for basing retrieval tools on user tagging are yet to receive full consideration by library practitioners and researchers. Among these is the simple evaluative question: What, specifically, are the factors that determine whether or not user-tagging services will be successful? If success is to be defined in terms of the effectiveness with which systems perform the particular functions expected of them (rather than simply in terms of popularity), an understanding is needed both of the multifunctional nature of tagging tools, and of the complex nature of users' mental models of that multifunctionality. In this paper, a conceptual framework is developed for the evaluation of systems that integrate user tagging with more traditional methods of library resource description.
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:29:31
  10. Naderi, H.; Rumpler, B.: PERCIRS: a system to combine personalized and collaborative information retrieval (2010) 0.01 
    0.008230318 = product of:
  0.028806113 = sum of:
    0.021843476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021843476 = score(doc=3960,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 3960, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3960)
    0.0069626356 = product of:
      0.020887906 = sum of:
        0.020887906 = weight(_text_:29 in 3960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020887906 = score(doc=3960,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 3960, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3960)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper aims to discuss and test the claim that utilization of the personalization techniques can be valuable to improve the efficiency of collaborative information retrieval (CIR) systems. Design/methodology/approach - A new personalized CIR system, called PERCIRS, is presented based on the user profile similarity calculation (UPSC) formulas. To this aim, the paper proposes several UPSC formulas as well as two techniques to evaluate them. As the proposed CIR system is personalized, it could not be evaluated by Cranfield, like evaluation techniques (e.g. TREC). Hence, this paper proposes a new user-centric mechanism, which enables PERCIRS to be evaluated. This mechanism is generic and can be used to evaluate any other personalized IR system. Findings - The results show that among the proposed UPSC formulas in this paper, the (query-document)-graph based formula is the most effective. After integrating this formula into PERCIRS and comparing it with nine other IR systems, it is concluded that the results of the system are better than the other IR systems. In addition, the paper shows that the complexity of the system is less that the complexity of the other CIR systems. Research limitations/implications - This system asks the users to explicitly rank the returned documents, while explicit ranking is still not widespread enough. However it believes that the users should actively participate in the IR process in order to aptly satisfy their needs to information. Originality/value - The value of this paper lies in combining collaborative and personalized IR, as well as introducing a mechanism which enables the personalized IR system to be evaluated. The proposed evaluation mechanism is very valuable for developers of personalized IR systems. The paper also introduces some significant user profile similarity calculation formulas, and two techniques to evaluate them. These formulas can also be used to find the user's community in the social networks.
    Date
    29. 8.2010 12:59:10
  11. Matthews, B.; Jones, C.; Puzon, B.; Moon, J.; Tudhope, D.; Golub, K.; Nielsen, M.L.: ¬An evaluation of enhancing social tagging with a knowledge organization system (2010) 0.01 
    0.008002967 = product of:
  0.028010383 = sum of:
    0.019307088 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019307088 = score(doc=4171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4171)
    0.008703294 = product of:
      0.026109882 = sum of:
        0.026109882 = weight(_text_:29 in 4171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026109882 = score(doc=4171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4171, 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=4171)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Traditional subject indexing and classification are considered infeasible in many digital collections. This paper seeks to investigate ways of enhancing social tagging via knowledge organization systems, with a view to improving the quality of tags for increased information discovery and retrieval performance. Design/methodology/approach - Enhanced tagging interfaces were developed for exemplar online repositories, and trials were undertaken with author and reader groups to evaluate the effectiveness of tagging augmented with control vocabulary for subject indexing of papers in online repositories. Findings - The results showed that using a knowledge organisation system to augment tagging does appear to increase the effectiveness of non-specialist users (that is, without information science training) in subject indexing. Research limitations/implications - While limited by the size and scope of the trials undertaken, these results do point to the usefulness of a mixed approach in supporting the subject indexing of online resources. Originality/value - The value of this work is as a guide to future developments in the practical support for resource indexing in online repositories.
    Date
    29. 8.2010 11:39:20
  12. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.01 
    0.007980598 = product of:
  0.02793209 = sum of:
    0.019307088 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019307088 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.008625003 = product of:
      0.025875006 = sum of:
        0.025875006 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025875006 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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".
  13. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.01 
    0.007980598 = product of:
  0.02793209 = sum of:
    0.019307088 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019307088 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
    0.008625003 = product of:
      0.025875006 = sum of:
        0.025875006 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025875006 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 515, 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=515)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    A new collaborative approach in information organization and sharing has recently arisen, known as collaborative tagging or social indexing. A key element of collaborative tagging is the concept of collective intelligence (CI), which is a shared intelligence among all participants. This research investigates the phenomenon of social tagging in the context of CI with the aim to serve as a stepping-stone towards the mining of truly valuable social tags for web resources. This study focuses on assessing and evaluating the degree of CI embedded in social tagging over time in terms of two-parameter values, number of participants, and top frequency ranking window. Five different metrics were adopted and utilized for assessing the similarity between ranking lists: overlapList, overlapRank, Footrule, Fagin's measure, and the Inverse Rank measure. The result of this study demonstrates that a substantial degree of CI is most likely to be achieved when somewhere between the first 200 and 400 people have participated in tagging, and that a target degree of CI can be projected by controlling the two factors along with the selection of a similarity metric. The study also tests some experimental conditions for detecting social tags with high CI degree. The results of this study can be applicable to the study of filtering social tags based on CI; filtered social tags may be utilized for the metadata creation of tagged resources and possibly for the retrieval of tagged resources.
    Date
    25.12.2012 15:22:37
  14. Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008) 0.01 
    0.007921508 = product of:
  0.05545055 = sum of:
    0.05545055 = product of:
      0.08317582 = sum of:
        0.04177581 = weight(_text_:29 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04177581 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = 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)
        0.041400008 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041400008 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 9:55:29
    Pages
    S.15-22
  15. Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011) 0.01 
    0.0071771382 = product of:
  0.050239965 = sum of:
    0.050239965 = product of:
      0.07535995 = sum of:
        0.04430994 = weight(_text_:29 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04430994 = score(doc=164,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.3297832 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
        0.031050006 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031050006 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, 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=164)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    29. 5.2012 13:58:08
    29. 5.2012 14:15:36
    Source
    ¬Die Kraft der digitalen Unordnung: 32. Arbeits- und Fortbildungstagung der ASpB e. V., Sektion 5 im Deutschen Bibliotheksverband, 22.-25. September 2009 in der Universität Karlsruhe. Hrsg: Jadwiga Warmbrunn u.a
  16. Peters, I.; Schumann, L.; Terliesner, J.: Folksonomy-basiertes Information Retrieval unter der Lupe (2012) 0.01 
    0.006688172 = product of:
  0.046817202 = sum of:
    0.046817202 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046817202 = score(doc=406,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 406, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=406)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Social Tagging ist eine weitverbreitete Methode, um nutzergenerierte Inhalte in Webdiensten zu indexieren. Dieser Artikel fasst die aktuelle Forschung zu Folksonomies und Effektivität von Tags in Retrievalsystemen zusammen. Es wurde ein TREC-ähnlicher Retrievaltest mit Tags und Ressourcen aus dem Social Bookmarking-Dienst delicious durchgeführt, welcher in Recall- und Precisionwerten für ausschließlich Tag-basierte Suchen resultierte. Außerdem wurden Tags in verschiedenen Stufen bereinigt und auf ihre Retrieval-Effektivität getestet. Testergebnisse zeigen, dass Retrieval in Folksonomies am besten mit kurzen Anfragen funktioniert. Hierbei sind die Recallwerte hoch, die Precisionwerte jedoch eher niedrig. Die Suchfunktion "power tags only" liefert verbesserte Precisionwerte.
  17. Konkova, E.; Göker, A.; Butterworth, R.; MacFarlane, A.: Social tagging: exploring the image, the tags, and the game (2014) 0.01 
    0.0066195736 = product of:
  0.046337012 = sum of:
    0.046337012 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046337012 = score(doc=1370,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1370, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1370)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Large image collections on the Web need to be organized for effective retrieval. Metadata has a key role in image retrieval but rely on professionally assigned tags which is not a viable option. Current content-based image retrieval systems have not demonstrated sufficient utility on large-scale image sources on the web, and are usually used as a supplement to existing text-based image retrieval systems. We present two social tagging alternatives in the form of photo-sharing networks and image labeling games. Here we analyze these applications to evaluate their usefulness from the semantic point of view, investigating the management of social tagging for indexing. The findings of the study have shown that social tagging can generate a sizeable number of tags that can be classified as in terpretive for an image, and that tagging behaviour has a manageable and adjustable nature depending on tagging guidelines.
  18. Good tags - bad tags : Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation (2008) 0.01 
    0.006473599 = product of:
  0.022657596 = sum of:
    0.009653544 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009653544 = score(doc=3054,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.08355226 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
    0.013004052 = weight(_text_:internet in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013004052 = score(doc=3054,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.11532187 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Teile und sammle könnte der moderne Leitspruch für das Phänomen Social Tagging heißen. Die freie und kollaborative Verschlagwortung digitaler Ressourcen im Internet gehört zu den Anwendungen aus dem Kontext von Web 2.0, die sich zunehmender Beliebtheit erfreuen. Der 2003 gegründete Social Bookmarking Dienst Del.icio.us und die 2004 entstandene Bildersammlung Flickr waren erste Anwendungen, die Social Tagging anboten und noch immer einen Großteil der Nutzer/innen an sich binden. Beim Blick in die Literatur wird schnell deutlich, dass Social Tagging polarisiert: Von Befürwortern wird es als eine Form der innovativen Wissensorganisation gefeiert, während Skeptiker die Dienste des Web 2.0 inklusive Social Tagging als globale kulturelle Bedrohung verdammen. Launischer Hype oder Quantensprung was ist dran am Social Tagging? Mit der Zielsetzung, mehr über die Erwartungen, Anwendungsbereiche und Nutzungsweisen zu erfahren, wurde im Frühjahr 2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen ein Workshop der Gesellschaft für Medien in der Wissenschaft (GMW) durchgeführt. Die vorliegende Publikation fasst die Ergebnisse der interdisziplinären Veranstaltung zusammen.
    Content
    - Tagging im Semantic Web Benjamin Birkenhake: Semantic Weblog. Erfahrungen vom Bloggen mit Tags und Ontologien Simone Braun, Andreas Schmidt, Andreas Walter & Valentin Zacharias: Von Tags zu semantischen Beziehungen: kollaborative Ontologiereifung Jakob Voß: Vom Social Tagging zum Semantic Tagging Georg Güntner, Rolf Sint & Rupert Westenthaler: Ein Ansatz zur Unterstützung traditioneller Klassifikation durch Social Tagging Viktoria Pammer, Tobias Ley & Stefanie Lindstaedt: tagr: Unterstützung in kollaborativen Tagging-Umgebungen durch Semantische und Assoziative Netzwerke Matthias Quasthoff Harald Sack & Christoph Meinet: Nutzerfreundliche Internet-Sicherheit durch tag-basierte Zugriffskontrolle
    Footnote
    Enthält die Beiträge der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen. Volltext unter: http://www.waxmann.com/kat/inhalt/2039Volltext.pdf. Vgl. die Rez. unter: http://sehepunkte.de/2008/11/14934.html. Rez. in: IWP 60(1009) H.4, S.246-247 (C. Wolff): "Tagging-Systeme erfreuen sich in den letzten Jahren einer ungemein großen Beliebtheit, erlauben sie dem Nutzer doch die Informationserschließung "mit eigenen Worten", also ohne Rekurs auf vorgegebene Ordnungs- und Begriffsysteme und für Medien wie Bild und Video, für die herkömmliche Verfahren des Information Retrieval (noch) versagen. Die Beherrschung der Film- und Bilderfülle, wie wir sie bei Flickr oder YouTube vorfinden, ist mit anderen Mitteln als dem intellektuellen Einsatz der Nutzer nicht vorstellbar - eine professionelle Aufbereitung angesichts der Massendaten (und ihrer zu einem großen Teil auch minderen Qualität) nicht möglich und sinnvoll. Insofern hat sich Tagging als ein probates Mittel der Erschließung herausgebildet, das dort Lücken füllen kann, wo andere Verfahren (Erschließung durch information professionals, automatische Indexierung, Erschließung durch Autoren) fehlen oder nicht anwendbar sind. Unter dem Titel "Good Tags - Bad Tags. Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" und der Herausgeberschaft von Birgit Gaiser, Thorsten Hampel und Stefanie Panke sind in der Reihe Medien in der Wissenschaft (Bd. 47) Beiträge eines interdisziplinären Workshops der Gesellschaft für Medien in der Wissenschaft zum Thema Tagging versammelt, der im Frühjahr 2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien in Tübingen stattgefunden hat. . . .
  19. Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008) 0.01 
    0.0063844784 = product of:
  0.022345673 = sum of:
    0.015445671 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015445671 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
    0.0069000013 = product of:
      0.020700004 = sum of:
        0.020700004 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020700004 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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
  20. Peters, I.: Folksonomies : indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0 (2009) 0.01 
    0.005404859 = product of:
  0.03783401 = sum of:
    0.03783401 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03783401 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.32745665 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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".
    RSWK
    Information Retrieval
    Subject
    Information Retrieval

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 50
  • d 12
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 53
  • el 5
  • m 5
  • b 2
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications