Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Folksonomies"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Morrison, P.J.: Tagging and searching : search retrieval effectiveness of folksonomies on the World Wide Web (2008) 0.01 
    0.011607395 = product of:
  0.040625878 = sum of:
    0.025903076 = product of:
      0.06475769 = sum of:
        0.03107218 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03107218 = score(doc=2109,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2109, 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=2109)
        0.033685513 = weight(_text_:system in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033685513 = score(doc=2109,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    0.0147228 = product of:
      0.0294456 = sum of:
        0.0294456 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0294456 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Many Web sites have begun allowing users to submit items to a collection and tag them with keywords. The folksonomies built from these tags are an interesting topic that has seen little empirical research. This study compared the search information retrieval (IR) performance of folksonomies from social bookmarking Web sites against search engines and subject directories. Thirty-four participants created 103 queries for various information needs. Results from each IR system were collected and participants judged relevance. Folksonomy search results overlapped with those from the other systems, and documents found by both search engines and folksonomies were significantly more likely to be judged relevant than those returned by any single IR system type. The search engines in the study had the highest precision and recall, but the folksonomies fared surprisingly well. Del.icio.us was statistically indistinguishable from the directories in many cases. Overall the directories were more precise than the folksonomies but they had similar recall scores. Better query handling may enhance folksonomy IR performance further. The folksonomies studied were promising, and may be able to improve Web search performance.
    Date
    1. 8.2008 12:39:22
  2. Fiala, S.: Deutscher Bibliothekartag Leipzig 2007 : Sacherschließung - Informationsdienstleistung nach Mass (2007) 0.01 
    0.010677784 = product of:
  0.074744485 = sum of:
    0.074744485 = weight(_text_:abfrage in 415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074744485 = score(doc=415,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28580084 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.890225 = idf(docFreq=44, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03622214 = queryNorm
        0.26152647 = fieldWeight in 415, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.890225 = idf(docFreq=44, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=415)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Content
    Der dritte Vortrag dieser Vortragsreihe mit dem Titel: "Anfragetransfers zur Integration von Internetquellen in digitalen Bibliotheken auf der Grundlage statistischer Termrelationen" (Robert Strötgen, Hildesheim) zeigte eine maschinelle Methode der Integration ausgewählter, inhaltlich aber nicht erschlossener Internetdokumentbestände in digitale Bibliotheken. Das Zusammentreffen inhaltlich gut erschlossener Fachdatenbanken mit Internetdokumenten steht im Mittelpunkt dieses Forschungsprojekts. "Sollen ausgewählte fachliche Internetdokumente zur Ausweitung einer Recherche in einer digitalen Bibliothek integriert werden, ist dies entweder durch eine Beschränkung auf hochwertige und aufwändig erstellte Clearinghouses oder durch eine "naive" Weiterleitung der Benutzeranfrage möglich." Weiter heißt es in der Projektbeschreibung: "Unter Anwendung von Methoden des maschinellen Lernens werden semantische Relationen zwischen Klassen verschiedener Ontologien erstellt, die Übergänge zwischen diesen Ontologien ermöglichen. Besondere Bedeutung für dieses Forschungsvorhaben hat der Transfer zwischen Ontologien und Freitexttermen." Ausgehend vom Projekt CARMEN werden in diesem Projekt automatisiert - durch statistisches maschinelles Lernen - semantische Relationen berechnet. So wird eine Benutzeranfrage, die mittels Thesaurus erfolgte, für eine Abfrage in Internetdokumentbeständen transformiert.
  3. Broughton, V.: Automatic metadata generation : Digital resource description without human intervention (2007) 0.00 
    0.0042065145 = product of:
  0.0294456 = sum of:
    0.0294456 = product of:
      0.0588912 = sum of:
        0.0588912 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0588912 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    22. 9.2007 15:41:14
  4. Yi, K.; Chan, L.M.: Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress subject headings : an exploratory study (2009) 0.00 
    0.0029985027 = product of:
  0.020989519 = sum of:
    0.020989519 = product of:
      0.052473795 = sum of:
        0.020714786 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020714786 = score(doc=3616,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 3616, 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=3616)
        0.03175901 = weight(_text_:system in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175901 = score(doc=3616,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the linking of a folksonomy (user vocabulary) and LCSH (controlled vocabulary) on the basis of word matching, for the potential use of LCSH in bringing order to folksonomies. Design/methodology/approach - A selected sample of a folksonomy from a popular collaborative tagging system, Delicious, was word-matched with LCSH. LCSH was transformed into a tree structure called an LCSH tree for the matching. A close examination was conducted on the characteristics of folksonomies, the overlap of folksonomies with LCSH, and the distribution of folksonomies over the LCSH tree. Findings - The experimental results showed that the total proportion of tags being matched with LC subject headings constituted approximately two-thirds of all tags involved, with an additional 10 percent of the remaining tags having potential matches. A number of barriers for the linking as well as two areas in need of improving the matching are identified and described. Three important tag distribution patterns over the LCSH tree were identified and supported: skewedness, multifacet, and Zipfian-pattern. Research limitations/implications - The results of the study can be adopted for the development of innovative methods of mapping between folksonomy and LCSH, which directly contributes to effective access and retrieval of tagged web resources and to the integration of multiple information repositories based on the two vocabularies. Practical implications - The linking of controlled vocabularies can be applicable to enhance information retrieval capability within collaborative tagging systems as well as across various tagging system information depositories and bibliographic databases. Originality/value - This is among frontier works that examines the potential of linking a folksonomy, extracted from a collaborative tagging system, to an authority-maintained subject heading system. It provides exploratory data to support further advanced mapping methods for linking the two vocabularies.
  5. Bar-Ilan, J.; Belous, Y.: Children as architects of Web directories : an exploratory study (2007) 0.00 
    0.002613878 = product of:
  0.018297145 = sum of:
    0.018297145 = product of:
      0.045742862 = sum of:
        0.025893483 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025893483 = score(doc=289,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
        0.01984938 = weight(_text_:system in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01984938 = score(doc=289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Children are increasingly using the Web. Cognitive theory tells us that directory structures are especially suited for information retrieval by children; however, empirical results show that they prefer keyword searching. One of the reasons for these findings could be that the directory structures and terminology are created by grown-ups. Using a card-sorting method and an enveloping system, we simulated the structure of a directory. Our goal was to try to understand what browsable, hierarchical subject categories children create when suggested terms are supplied and they are free to add or delete terms. Twelve groups of four children each (fourth and fifth graders) participated in our exploratory study. The initial terminology presented to the children was based on names of categories used in popular directories, in the sections on Arts, Television, Music, Cinema, and Celebrities. The children were allowed to introduce additional cards and change the terms appearing on the 61 cards. Findings show that the different groups reached reasonable consensus; the majority of the category names used by existing directories were acceptable by them and only a small minority of the terms caused confusion. Our recommendation is to include children in the design process of directories, not only in designing the interface but also in designing the content structure as well.
    Theme
    Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
  6. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.00 
    0.0024787125 = product of:
  0.017350987 = sum of:
    0.017350987 = product of:
      0.034701973 = sum of:
        0.034701973 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034701973 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Pages
    S.14-22
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  7. Wesch, M.: Information R/evolution (2006) 0.00 
    0.0024538 = product of:
  0.0171766 = sum of:
    0.0171766 = product of:
      0.0343532 = sum of:
        0.0343532 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0343532 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1267, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1267)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    5. 1.2008 19:22:48
  8. Kim, H.L.; Scerri, S.; Breslin, J.G.; Decker, S.; Kim, H.G.: ¬The state of the art in tag ontologies : a semantic model for tagging and folksonomies (2008) 0.00 
    0.0017527144 = product of:
  0.0122690005 = sum of:
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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
  9. Braun, M.: Lesezeichen zum Stöbern : "Social bookmark"-Seiten setzen auf die Empfehlungen ihrer Nutzer (2007) 0.00 
    0.0014021716 = product of:
  0.0098152 = sum of:
    0.0098152 = product of:
      0.0196304 = sum of:
        0.0196304 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0196304 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    3. 5.1997 8:44:22
  10. Voss, J.: Collaborative thesaurus tagging the Wikipedia way (2006) 0.00 
    0.0012832579 = product of:
  0.008982805 = sum of:
    0.008982805 = product of:
      0.044914022 = sum of:
        0.044914022 = weight(_text_:system in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044914022 = score(doc=620,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.3936941 = fieldWeight in 620, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=620)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    This paper explores the system of categories that is used to classify articles in Wikipedia. It is compared to collaborative tagging systems like del.icio.us and to hierarchical classification like the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). Specifics and commonalities of these systems of subject indexing are exposed. Analysis of structural and statistical properties (descriptors per record, records per descriptor, descriptor levels) shows that the category system of Wikimedia is a thesaurus that combines collaborative tagging and hierarchical subject indexing in a special way.
  11. Peters, I.: Folksonomies : indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0 (2009) 0.00 
    0.0010251162 = product of:
  0.007175813 = sum of:
    0.007175813 = product of:
      0.035879064 = sum of:
        0.035879064 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035879064 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  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
  12. Furner, J.: Folksonomies (2009) 0.00 
    8.3700387E-4 = product of:
  0.0058590267 = sum of:
    0.0058590267 = product of:
      0.029295133 = sum of:
        0.029295133 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029295133 = score(doc=3857,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 3857, 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=3857)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Folksonomies are indexing languages that emerge from the distributed resource-description activity of multiple agents who make use of online tagging services to assign tags (i.e., category labels) to the resources in collections. Although individuals' motivations for engaging in tagging activity vary widely, folksonomy-based retrieval systems can be evaluated by measuring the degree to which taggers and searchers agree on tag-resource pairings.
  13. Munk, T.B.; Mork, K.: Folksonomy, the power law & the significance of the least effort (2007) 0.00 
    8.0203614E-4 = product of:
  0.0056142528 = sum of:
    0.0056142528 = product of:
      0.028071264 = sum of:
        0.028071264 = weight(_text_:system in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028071264 = score(doc=663,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    The essence of folksonomies is user-created descriptive metadata as opposed to the traditional sender-determined descriptive metadata in taxonomies and faceted classification. We briefly introduce the beginning and principles of folksonomy and discuss the categorizing concept of folksonomies on the basis of the computer program del.icio.us. The selection of the metadata tagged is not accidental, rather tagging follows a pattern that proves to be the pattern for the classic power law, which, in many complex systems is seen to unfold as an imitation-dynamic that creates an asymmetry, where a few descriptive metadata are often reproduced and the majority seldom reproduced. In del.icio.us, it is the very broad and basic subject headings that are often reproduced and achieve power in the system - which in cognitive psychology is called cognitive basic categories - while the small, more specific subject headings are seldom reproduced. The law of power's underlying imitation-dynamic in del.icio.us is explained from the perspective of different theoretical paradigms, i.e. network, economy and cognition. The theorectical and speculative conclusion is that the law of power and asymmetry is biased by a cognitive economizing through a simplification principle in the users construction of descriptive metadata. Free tagging in folksonomies is comparable to empirical experiments in free categorization. Users often choose broad basic categories, because that requires the least cognitive effort. The consequences are that folksonomy is not necessarily a better, more realistic and cheaper method of creating metadata than that which can be generated through taxonomies, faceted classification or search algorithms. Folksonomy as a self-organizing system likely cannot create better and cheaper descriptive metadata.
  14. Pera, M.S.; Lund, W.; Ng, Y.-K.: ¬A sophisticated library search strategy using folksonomies and similarity matching (2009) 0.00 
    8.0203614E-4 = product of:
  0.0056142528 = sum of:
    0.0056142528 = product of:
      0.028071264 = sum of:
        0.028071264 = weight(_text_:system in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028071264 = score(doc=2939,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Libraries, private and public, offer valuable resources to library patrons. As of today, the only way to locate information archived exclusively in libraries is through their catalogs. Library patrons, however, often find it difficult to formulate a proper query, which requires using specific keywords assigned to different fields of desired library catalog records, to obtain relevant results. These improperly formulated queries often yield irrelevant results or no results at all. This negative experience in dealing with existing library systems turns library patrons away from directly querying library catalogs; instead, they rely on Web search engines to perform their searches first, and upon obtaining the initial information (e.g., titles, subject headings, or authors) on the desired library materials, they query library catalogs. This searching strategy is an evidence of failure of today's library systems. In solving this problem, we propose an enhanced library system, which allows partial, similarity matching of (a) tags defined by ordinary users at a folksonomy site that describe the content of books and (b) unrestricted keywords specified by an ordinary library patron in a query to search for relevant library catalog records. The proposed library system allows patrons posting a query Q using commonly used words and ranks the retrieved results according to their degrees of resemblance with Q while maintaining the query processing time comparable with that achieved by current library search engines.
  15. Noruzi, A.: Folksonomies : (un)controlled vocabulary? (2006) 0.00 
    7.9397525E-4 = product of:
  0.0055578267 = sum of:
    0.0055578267 = product of:
      0.027789133 = sum of:
        0.027789133 = weight(_text_:system in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027789133 = score(doc=404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Folksonomy, a free-form tagging, is a user-generated classification system of web contents that allows users to tag their favorite web resources with their chosen words or phrases selected from natural language. These tags (also called concepts, categories, facets or entities) can be used to classify web resources and to express users' preferences. Folksonomy-based systems allow users to classify web resources through tagging bookmarks, photos or other web resources and saving them to a public web site like Del.icio.us. Thus information about web resources and online articles can be shared in an easy way. The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the folksonomy tagging phenomenon (also called social tagging and social bookmarking) and explore some of the reasons why we need controlled vocabularies, discussing the problems associated with folksonomy.
  16. Simon, D.: Anreicherung bibliothekarischer Titeldaten durch Tagging : Möglichkeiten und Probleme (2007) 0.00 
    7.9397525E-4 = product of:
  0.0055578267 = sum of:
    0.0055578267 = product of:
      0.027789133 = sum of:
        0.027789133 = weight(_text_:system in 530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027789133 = score(doc=530,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 530, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=530)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Die Arbeit ist die untersucht dier Möglichkeiten von Tagging-Verfahren im Kontext bibliothekarischer Erschließung. Der Verfasser führt dazu in das Thema Social Tagging bzw. Folksonomy ein und erklärt die Funktionsweise von Tagging-Systemen. Die Untersuchung stützt sich im wesentlichen auf eine Analyse des KölnerUniversitätsGesamtkatalogs (KUG), der direktes Tagging durch Katalognutzer ebenso ermöglicht wie die Übernahme von Katalogeinträgen für das System BibSonomy. KUG und BibSonomy werden daher mit ihren Eigenschaften vorgestellt, bevor eine bewertende Analyse der Taggingmöglichkeiten und deren bisheriger tatsächlicher Nutzung vorgenommen wird. Dabei untersucht der Verfasser auch den möglichen Beitrag von Tagging-Verfahren in Ergänzung zu den Ergebnissen von Verfahren der inhaltlichen Erschließung und automatischen Indexierung.
  17. Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval (2008) 0.00 
    6.2775286E-4 = product of:
  0.00439427 = sum of:
    0.00439427 = product of:
      0.02197135 = sum of:
        0.02197135 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02197135 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1597, 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=1597)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
  18. Goodrum, A.; Hibbard, C.E.; Fels, C.D.; Woodcock, C.K.: ¬The creation of keysigns : American sign language metadata (2008) 0.00 
    6.2775286E-4 = product of:
  0.00439427 = sum of:
    0.00439427 = product of:
      0.02197135 = sum of:
        0.02197135 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02197135 = score(doc=2272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2272, 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=2272)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Content
    This paper reports preliminary results from a pilot test of the creation of a folksonomic gestural taxonomy for sign language indexing and retrieval. Skilled sign language interpreters and deaf participants were asked to create sign language metadata or 'Keysigns' that they would assign to classify topics presented by three deaf scientists during a day-log workshop. Although their Keysigns demonstrate a high degree of content conformity, the physical signing itself lacked consistency. Comments made by participants revealed that signed metadata was not a commonly understood concept and that the exercise was cognitively challenging. The paper concludes with suggestions for ways to make the creation of folksonomic Keysign metadata easier from cognitive and physical perspectives.
  19. Macgregor, G.; McCulloch, E.: Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool (2006) 0.00 
    5.2312744E-4 = product of:
  0.003661892 = sum of:
    0.003661892 = product of:
      0.01830946 = sum of:
        0.01830946 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01830946 = score(doc=764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 764, 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=764)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to provide an overview of the collaborative tagging phenomenon and explore some of the reasons for its emergence. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reviews the related literature and discusses some of the problems associated with, and the potential of, collaborative tagging approaches for knowledge organisation and general resource discovery. A definition of controlled vocabularies is proposed and used to assess the efficacy of collaborative tagging. An exposition of the collaborative tagging model is provided and a review of the major contributions to the tagging literature is presented. Findings - There are numerous difficulties with collaborative tagging systems (e.g. low precision, lack of collocation, etc.) that originate from the absence of properties that characterise controlled vocabularies. However, such systems can not be dismissed. Librarians and information professionals have lessons to learn from the interactive and social aspects exemplified by collaborative tagging systems, as well as their success in engaging users with information management. The future co-existence of controlled vocabularies and collaborative tagging is predicted, with each appropriate for use within distinct information contexts: formal and informal. Research limitations/implications - Librarians and information professional researchers should be playing a leading role in research aimed at assessing the efficacy of collaborative tagging in relation to information storage, organisation, and retrieval, and to influence the future development of collaborative tagging systems. Practical implications - The paper indicates clear areas where digital libraries and repositories could innovate in order to better engage users with information. Originality/value - At time of writing there were no literature reviews summarising the main contributions to the collaborative tagging research or debate.
  20. Trant, J.: Exploring the potential for social tagging and folksonomy in art museums : proof of concept (2006) 0.00 
    4.5370017E-4 = product of:
  0.003175901 = sum of:
    0.003175901 = product of:
      0.015879504 = sum of:
        0.015879504 = weight(_text_:system in 5900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015879504 = score(doc=5900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 5900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5900)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Documentation of art museum collections has been traditionally written by and for art historians. To make art museum collections broadly accessible, and to enable art museums to engage their communities, means of access need to reflect the perspectives of other groups and communities. Social Tagging (the collective assignment of keywords to resources) and its resulting Folksonomy (the assemblage of concepts expressed in such a cooperatively developed system of classification) offer ways for art museums to engage with their communities and to understand what users of online museum collections see as important. Proof of Concept studies at The Metropolitan Museum of Art compared terms assigned by trained cataloguers and untrained cataloguers to existing museum documentation, and explored the potential for social tagging to improve access to museum collections. These preliminary studies, the results of which are reported here, have shown the potential of social tagging and folksonomy to open museum collections to new, more personal meanings. Untrained cataloguers identified content elements not described in formal museum documentation. Results from these tests - the first in the domain - provided validation for exploring social tagging and folksonomy as an access strategy within The Metropolitan Museum, motivation to proceed with a broader inter-institutional collaboration, and input into the development of a multi-institutional collaboration exploring tagging in art museums. Tags assigned by users might help bridge the semantic gap between the professional discourse of the curator and the popular language of the museum visitor. The steve collaboration (http://www.steve.museum) is building on these early studies to develop shared tools and research methods that enable social tagging of art museum collections and explore the utility of folksonomy for providing enhanced access to collections.

Authors

Languages

Types

Themes

Subjects

Classifications