Search (82 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Heckner, M.: Tagging, rating, posting : studying forms of user contribution for web-based information management and information retrieval (2009) 0.11 
    0.11333726 = product of:
  0.22667453 = sum of:
    0.065349266 = weight(_text_:world in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065349266 = score(doc=2931,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.42466965 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
    0.08683693 = weight(_text_:wide in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08683693 = score(doc=2931,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17738682 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.48953426 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
    0.07448834 = weight(_text_:web in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07448834 = score(doc=2931,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = 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(3/6)
    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
  2. Web-2.0-Dienste als Ergänzung zu algorithmischen Suchmaschinen (2008) 0.10 
    0.09616986 = product of:
  0.19233972 = sum of:
    0.05545069 = weight(_text_:world in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05545069 = score(doc=4323,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.36034414 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
    0.073683575 = weight(_text_:wide in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073683575 = score(doc=4323,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17738682 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.4153836 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
    0.06320546 = weight(_text_:web in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06320546 = score(doc=4323,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = 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(3/6)
    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
  3. Peters, I.: Folksonomies & Social Tagging (2023) 0.08 
    0.08182444 = product of:
  0.16364887 = sum of:
    0.045744486 = weight(_text_:world in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045744486 = score(doc=796,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.29726875 = fieldWeight in 796, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=796)
    0.06078585 = weight(_text_:wide in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06078585 = score(doc=796,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17738682 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 796, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=796)
    0.057118528 = weight(_text_:web in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057118528 = score(doc=796,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 796, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=796)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    Die Erforschung und der Einsatz von Folksonomies und Social Tagging als nutzerzentrierte Formen der Inhaltserschließung und Wissensrepräsentation haben in den 10 Jahren ab ca. 2005 ihren Höhenpunkt erfahren. Motiviert wurde dies durch die Entwicklung und Verbreitung des Social Web und der wachsenden Nutzung von Social-Media-Plattformen (s. Kapitel E 8 Social Media und Social Web). Beides führte zu einem rasanten Anstieg der im oder über das World Wide Web auffindbaren Menge an potenzieller Information und generierte eine große Nachfrage nach skalierbaren Methoden der Inhaltserschließung.
  4. Ding, Y.; Jacob, E.K.; Zhang, Z.; Foo, S.; Yan, E.; George, N.L.; Guo, L.: Perspectives on social tagging (2009) 0.07 
    0.073922195 = product of:
  0.14784439 = sum of:
    0.03920956 = weight(_text_:world in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03920956 = score(doc=3290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
    0.052102152 = weight(_text_:wide in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052102152 = score(doc=3290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17738682 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
    0.056532677 = weight(_text_:web in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056532677 = score(doc=3290,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = 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(3/6)
    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.
  5. Peters, I.: Folksonomies : indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0 (2009) 0.07 
    0.06612413 = product of:
  0.13224825 = sum of:
    0.03696713 = weight(_text_:world in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03696713 = score(doc=4203,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.24022943 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
    0.049122386 = weight(_text_:wide in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049122386 = score(doc=4203,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17738682 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.2769224 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
    0.04615874 = weight(_text_:web in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04615874 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    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
  6. Carlin, S.A.: Schlagwortvergabe durch Nutzende (Tagging) als Hilfsmittel zur Suche im Web : Ansatz, Modelle, Realisierungen (2006) 0.06 
    0.06438215 = product of:
  0.1287643 = sum of:
    0.032674633 = weight(_text_:world in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032674633 = score(doc=2476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
    0.043418463 = weight(_text_:wide in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043418463 = score(doc=2476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17738682 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
    0.052671213 = weight(_text_:web in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052671213 = score(doc=2476,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    Nach dem zu Beginn der Ära des World Wide Web von Hand gepflegte Linklisten und -Verzeichnisse und an Freunde und Kollegen per E-Mail verschickte Links genügten, um die Informationen zu finden, nach denen man suchte, waren schon bald Volltextsuchmaschinen und halbautomatisch betriebene Kataloge notwendig, um den mehr und mehr anschwellenden Informationsfluten des Web Herr zu werden. Heute bereits sind diese Dämme gebrochen und viele Millionen Websites halten Billionen an Einzelseiten mit Informationen vor, von Datenbanken und anderweitig versteckten Informationen ganz zu schweigen. Mit Volltextsuchmaschinen erreicht man bei dieser Masse keine befriedigenden Ergebnisse mehr. Entweder man erzeugt lange Suchterme mit vielen Ausschließungen und ebenso vielen nicht-exklusiven ODER-Verknüpfungen um verschiedene Schreibweisen für den gleichen Term abzudecken oder man wählt von vornherein die Daten-Quelle, an die man seine Fragen stellt, genau aus. Doch oft bleiben nur klassische Web-Suchmaschinen übrig, zumal wenn der Fragende kein Informationsspezialist mit Kenntnissen von Spezialdatenbanken ist, sondern, von dieser Warte aus gesehenen, ein Laie. Und nicht nur im Web selbst, auch in unternehmensinternen Intranets steht man vor diesem Problem. Tausende von indizierten Dokumente mögen ein Eckdatum sein, nach dem sich der Erfolg der Einführung eines Intranets bemessen lässt, aber eine Aussage über die Nützlichkeit ist damit nicht getroffen. Und die bleibt meist hinter den Erwartungen zurück, vor allem bei denen Mitarbeitern, die tatsächlich mit dem Intranet arbeiten müssen. Entscheidend ist für die Informationsauffindung in Inter- und Intranet eine einfach zu nutzende und leicht anpassbare Möglichkeit, neue interessante Inhalte zu entdecken. Mit Tags steht eine mögliche Lösung bereit.
  7. Watters, C.; Nizam, N.: Knowledge organization on the Web : the emergent role of social classification (2012) 0.04 
    0.039301462 = product of:
  0.11790438 = sum of:
    0.06078585 = weight(_text_:wide in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06078585 = score(doc=828,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17738682 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
    0.057118528 = weight(_text_:web in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057118528 = score(doc=828,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    There are close to a billion websites on the Internet with approximately 400 million users worldwide [www.internetworldstats.com]. People go to websites for a wide variety of different information tasks, from finding a restaurant to serious research. Many of the difficulties with searching the Web, as it is structured currently, can be attributed to increases to scale. The content of the Web is now so large that we only have a rough estimate of the number of sites and the range of information is extremely diverse, from blogs and photos to research articles and news videos.
  8. Santini, M.: Zero, single, or multi? : genre of web pages through the users' perspective (2008) 0.03 
    0.027870266 = product of:
  0.083610795 = sum of:
    0.07448834 = weight(_text_:web in 2059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07448834 = score(doc=2059,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = 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)
    0.009122452 = product of:
      0.027367353 = sum of:
        0.027367353 = weight(_text_:29 in 2059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027367353 = score(doc=2059,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14083174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = 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
  9. Peters, I.: Folksonomies und kollaborative Informationsdienste : eine Alternative zur Websuche? (2011) 0.02 
    0.022631815 = product of:
  0.06789544 = sum of:
    0.05329952 = weight(_text_:web in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05329952 = score(doc=343,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
    0.014595922 = product of:
      0.043787766 = sum of:
        0.043787766 = weight(_text_:29 in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043787766 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14083174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
  10. Sun, A.; Bhowmick, S.S.; Nguyen, K.T.N.; Bai, G.: Tag-based social image retrieval : an empirical evaluation (2011) 0.02 
    0.022324583 = product of:
  0.066973746 = sum of:
    0.043418463 = weight(_text_:wide in 4938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043418463 = score(doc=4938,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17738682 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 4938, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4938)
    0.023555283 = weight(_text_:web in 4938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023555283 = score(doc=4938,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4938, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4938)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Tags associated with social images are valuable information source for superior image search and retrieval experiences. Although various heuristics are valuable to boost tag-based search for images, there is a lack of general framework to study the impact of these heuristics. Specifically, the task of ranking images matching a given tag query based on their associated tags in descending order of relevance has not been well studied. In this article, we take the first step to propose a generic, flexible, and extensible framework for this task and exploit it for a systematic and comprehensive empirical evaluation of various methods for ranking images. To this end, we identified five orthogonal dimensions to quantify the matching score between a tagged image and a tag query. These five dimensions are: (i) tag relatedness to measure the degree of effectiveness of a tag describing the tagged image; (ii) tag discrimination to quantify the degree of discrimination of a tag with respect to the entire tagged image collection; (iii) tag length normalization analogous to document length normalization in web search; (iv) tag-query matching model for the matching score computation between an image tag and a query tag; and (v) query model for tag query rewriting. For each dimension, we identify a few implementations and evaluate their impact on NUS-WIDE dataset, the largest human-annotated dataset consisting of more than 269K tagged images from Flickr. We evaluated 81 single-tag queries and 443 multi-tag queries over 288 search methods and systematically compare their performances using standard metrics including Precision at top-K, Mean Average Precision (MAP), Recall, and Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG).
  11. Evedove Tartarotti, R. Dal'; Lopes Fujita, M.: ¬The perspective of social indexing in online bibliographic catalogs : between the individual and the collaborative (2016) 0.02 
    0.02229178 = product of:
  0.06687534 = sum of:
    0.052279413 = weight(_text_:world in 4917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052279413 = score(doc=4917,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.33973572 = fieldWeight in 4917, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4917)
    0.014595922 = product of:
      0.043787766 = sum of:
        0.043787766 = weight(_text_:29 in 4917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043787766 = score(doc=4917,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14083174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 4917, 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=4917)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei
  12. Shirky, C.: Ontology is overrated : categories, links, and tags (2005) 0.02 
    0.021995611 = product of:
  0.065986834 = sum of:
    0.032674633 = weight(_text_:world in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032674633 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
    0.0333122 = weight(_text_:web in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0333122 = score(doc=1265,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Today I want to talk about categorization, and I want to convince you that a lot of what we think we know about categorization is wrong. In particular, I want to convince you that many of the ways we're attempting to apply categorization to the electronic world are actually a bad fit, because we've adopted habits of mind that are left over from earlier strategies. I also want to convince you that what we're seeing when we see the Web is actually a radical break with previous categorization strategies, rather than an extension of them. The second part of the talk is more speculative, because it is often the case that old systems get broken before people know what's going to take their place. (Anyone watching the music industry can see this at work today.) That's what I think is happening with categorization. What I think is coming instead are much more organic ways of organizing information than our current categorization schemes allow, based on two units -- the link, which can point to anything, and the tag, which is a way of attaching labels to links. The strategy of tagging -- free-form labeling, without regard to categorical constraints -- seems like a recipe for disaster, but as the Web has shown us, you can extract a surprising amount of value from big messy data sets.
  13. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.02 
    0.018716985 = product of:
  0.056150954 = sum of:
    0.047110565 = weight(_text_:web in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047110565 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = 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)
    0.009040388 = product of:
      0.027121164 = sum of:
        0.027121164 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027121164 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = 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
  14. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.02 
    0.017861329 = product of:
  0.053583987 = sum of:
    0.040798947 = weight(_text_:web in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040798947 = score(doc=2652,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = 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)
    0.012785039 = product of:
      0.038355116 = sum of:
        0.038355116 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038355116 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = 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
  15. Trant, J.; Bearman, D.: Social terminology enhancement through vernacular engagement : exploring collaborative annotation to encourage interaction with museum collections (2005) 0.02 
    0.017596489 = product of:
  0.052789465 = sum of:
    0.026139706 = weight(_text_:world in 1185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026139706 = score(doc=1185,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.16986786 = fieldWeight in 1185, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1185)
    0.02664976 = weight(_text_:web in 1185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02664976 = score(doc=1185,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 1185, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1185)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    From their earliest encounters with the Web, museums have seen an opportunity to move beyond uni-directional communication into an environment that engages their users and reflects a multiplicity of perspectives. Shedding the "Unassailable Voice" (Walsh 1997) in favor of many "Points of View" (Sledge 1995) has challenged traditional museum approaches to the creation and delivery of content. Novel approaches are required in order to develop and sustain user engagement (Durbin 2004). New models of exhibit creation that democratize the curatorial functions of object selection and interpretation offer one way of opening up the museum (Coldicutt and Streten 2005). Another is to use the museum as a forum and focus for community story-telling (Howard, Pratty et al. 2005). Unfortunately, museum collections remain relatively inaccessible even when 'made available' through searchable on-line databases. Museum documentation seldom satisfies the on-line access needs of the broad public, both because it is written using professional terminology and because it may not address what is important to - or remembered by - the museum visitor. For example, an exhibition now on-line at The Metropolitan Museum of Art acknowledges "Coco" Chanel only in the brief, textual introduction (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005a). All of the images of her delightful fashion designs are attributed to "Gabrielle Chanel" (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005a). Interfaces that organize collections along axes of time or place - such of that of the Timeline of Art History (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005e) - often fail to match users' world-views, despite the care that went into their structuring or their significant pedagogical utility. Critically, as professionals working with art museums we realize that when cataloguers and curators describe works of art, they usually do not include the "subject" of the image itself. Simply put, we rarely answer the question "What is it a picture of?" Unfortunately, visitors will often remember a work based on its visual characteristics, only to find that Web-based searches for any of the things they recall do not produce results.
  16. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.02 
    0.016941037 = product of:
  0.050823107 = sum of:
    0.03997464 = weight(_text_:web in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03997464 = score(doc=3387,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = 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)
    0.010848465 = product of:
      0.032545395 = sum of:
        0.032545395 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032545395 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = 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
  17. Furner, J.: User tagging of library resources : toward a framework for system evaluation (2007) 0.02 
    0.016718835 = product of:
  0.050156504 = sum of:
    0.03920956 = weight(_text_:world in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03920956 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.25480178 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
    0.0109469425 = product of:
      0.032840826 = sum of:
        0.032840826 = weight(_text_:29 in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032840826 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14083174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Content
    Vortrag anlässlich: WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 73RD IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND COUNCIL 19-23 August 2007, Durban, South Africa. - 157 - Classification and Indexing
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:29:31
  18. Marchitelli, A.; Piazzini, T.: OPAC, SOPAC e social networking : cataloghi di biblioteca 2.0? (2008) 0.02 
    0.01524961 = product of:
  0.04574883 = sum of:
    0.0329774 = weight(_text_:web in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0329774 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = 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)
    0.012771431 = product of:
      0.038314294 = sum of:
        0.038314294 = weight(_text_:29 in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038314294 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14083174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = 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
  19. Weiand, K.; Hartl, A.; Hausmann, S.; Furche, T.; Bry, F.: Keyword-based search over semantic data (2012) 0.01 
    0.014689299 = product of:
  0.088135794 = sum of:
    0.088135794 = weight(_text_:web in 432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088135794 = score(doc=432,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.13065568 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.6745654 = fieldWeight in 432, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=432)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    For a long while, the creation of Web content required at least basic knowledge of Web technologies, meaning that for many Web users, the Web was de facto a read-only medium. This changed with the arrival of the "social Web," when Web applications started to allow users to publish Web content without technological expertise. Here, content creation is often an inclusive, iterative, and interactive process. Examples of social Web applications include blogs, social networking sites, as well as many specialized applications, for example, for saving and sharing bookmarks and publishing photos. Social semantic Web applications are social Web applications in which knowledge is expressed not only in the form of text and multimedia but also through informal to formal annotations that describe, reflect, and enhance the content. These annotations often take the shape of RDF graphs backed by ontologies, but less formal annotations such as free-form tags or tags from a controlled vocabulary may also be available. Wikis are one example of social Web applications for collecting and sharing knowledge. They allow users to easily create and edit documents, so-called wiki pages, using a Web browser. The pages in a wiki are often heavily interlinked, which makes it easy to find related information and browse the content.
    Source
    Semantic search over the Web. Eds.: R. De Virgilio, et al
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  20. 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) 0.01 
    0.013905007 = product of:
  0.041715022 = sum of:
    0.032674633 = weight(_text_:world in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032674633 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1538826 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04003532 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
    0.009040388 = product of:
      0.027121164 = sum of:
        0.027121164 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027121164 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14019686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04003532 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    There is a growing interest into how we represent and share tagging data in collaborative tagging systems. Conventional tags, meaning freely created tags that are not associated with a structured ontology, are not naturally suited for collaborative processes, due to linguistic and grammatical variations, as well as human typing errors. Additionally, tags reflect personal views of the world by individual users, and are not normalised for synonymy, morphology or any other mapping. Our view is that the conventional approach provides very limited semantic value for collaboration. Moreover, in cases where there is some semantic value, automatically sharing semantics via computer manipulations is extremely problematic. This paper explores these problems by discussing approaches for collaborative tagging activities at a semantic level, and presenting conceptual models for collaborative tagging activities and folksonomies. We present criteria for the comparison of existing tag ontologies and discuss their strengths and weaknesses in relation to these criteria.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 59
  • d 22
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 68
  • el 9
  • m 9
  • s 3
  • b 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications