Search (102 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Farkas, M.G.: Social software in libraries : building collaboration, communication, and community online (2007) 0.08 
    0.079232894 = product of:
  0.29712334 = sum of:
    0.021599788 = product of:
      0.043199576 = sum of:
        0.043199576 = weight(_text_:online in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043199576 = score(doc=2364,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.4498688 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.15659083 = weight(_text_:soziale in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15659083 = score(doc=2364,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19331455 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.8100313 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
    0.08733976 = weight(_text_:software in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08733976 = score(doc=2364,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.6957995 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
    0.031592958 = weight(_text_:web in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031592958 = score(doc=2364,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2364, 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=2364)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Content
    Inhalt: What is social software? -- Blogs -- Blogs in libraries : practical applications -- RSS -- Wikis -- Online communities -- Social networking -- Social bookmarking and collaborative filtering -- Tools for synchronous online reference -- The mobile revolution -- Podcasting -- Screencasting and vodcasting -- Gaming -- What will work @ your library -- Keeping up : a primer -- Future trends in social software.
    LCSH
    Online social networks
    RSWK
    Bibliothek / Soziale Software
    Bibliothek / Web log
    Soziale Software / Bibliothek
    Subject
    Bibliothek / Soziale Software
    Bibliothek / Web log
    Soziale Software / Bibliothek
    Online social networks
  2. Web-2.0-Dienste als Ergänzung zu algorithmischen Suchmaschinen (2008) 0.07 
    0.070713215 = product of:
  0.26517454 = sum of:
    0.094835505 = weight(_text_:suchmaschine in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.094835505 = score(doc=4323,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17890577 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.53008634 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
    0.009659718 = product of:
      0.019319436 = sum of:
        0.019319436 = weight(_text_:online in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019319436 = score(doc=4323,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.110726446 = weight(_text_:soziale in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.110726446 = score(doc=4323,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19331455 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.57277864 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
    0.049952857 = weight(_text_:web in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049952857 = score(doc=4323,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = 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)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    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.
    Content
    Das Buchprojekt entstand im Rahmen des Forschungsprojektes Theseus (Teilprojekt Alexandria). - Als Online Publikation vgl.: http://www.bui.haw-hamburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/lewandowski/Web20-Buch/lewandowski-maass.pdf. Rez. in: ZfBB 56(2009) H.2, S.134-135 (K. Lepsky)
    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. Heckner, M.: Tagging, rating, posting : studying forms of user contribution for web-based information management and information retrieval (2009) 0.06 
    0.05672864 = product of:
  0.21273239 = sum of:
    0.013942603 = product of:
      0.027885206 = sum of:
        0.027885206 = weight(_text_:online in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027885206 = score(doc=2931,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.092272036 = weight(_text_:soziale in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092272036 = score(doc=2931,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19331455 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.47731552 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
    0.047647744 = weight(_text_:software in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047647744 = score(doc=2931,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.37958977 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
    0.058870003 = weight(_text_:web in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058870003 = score(doc=2931,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = 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)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    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.
    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
  4. Komus, A.; Wauch, F.: Wikimanagement : was Unternehmen von Social-Software und Web 2.0 lernen können (2008) 0.04 
    0.0382957 = product of:
  0.1914785 = sum of:
    0.10439389 = weight(_text_:soziale in 508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10439389 = score(doc=508,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19331455 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.5400209 = fieldWeight in 508, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=508)
    0.06602265 = weight(_text_:software in 508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06602265 = score(doc=508,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.525975 = fieldWeight in 508, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=508)
    0.021061972 = weight(_text_:web in 508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021061972 = score(doc=508,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 508, 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=508)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)
    Abstract
    Wie schaffen es hunderttausende Menschen in ihrer Freizeit eine Enzyklopädie zu erstellen, die in der Qualität der seit Jahrhunderten renommierten Brockhaus-Enzyklopädie in nichts nachsteht und in der Quantität weit übertrifft? Warum veröffentlichen Millionen von Internetnutzern ihre Urlaubsbilder und Videos aus dem privaten Leben im Netz? Wieso funktioniert die Informationsversorgung durch Touristen und Privatleute oftmals besser als die Berichterstattung der großen Agenturen? Und warum versprechen sich Unternehmen wie Google oder die Holtzbrinck Gruppe so viel von derartigen Plattformen, dass deren Gründer über Nacht zu Millionären werden? Wie schaffte es eine australische Brauerei, vom Business Plan bis zur Produktionsplanung alle Prozesse von einer Internet-Community entwickeln zu lassen? Wie passt die lose Kollaboration im Netz zu mühsam ausgearbeiteten und über viele Jahrzehnte untersuchten Organisationsmodellen in Unternehmen? Was können Unternehmen von Wikipedia & Co lernen? Wikimanagement gibt nicht nur einen ausführlichen Überblick über die aktuelle Welt des Web 2.0, sondern stellt auch die Funktionsweise der Wikipedia und anderer Social Software-Systeme den wichtigsten organisationstheoretischen Ansätzen gegenüber. In Anwendungsfeldern wie Innovation, Projektmanagement, Marketing und vielen anderen wird deutlich gemacht, wie Unternehmen von Social Software-Technologie und -Philosophie lernen und profitieren können.
    Content
    Inhalt: I. Wie funktionieren Social Software-Angebote? II. Welchen Erklärungsbeitrag leisten bestehende Organisationsansätze und welche Schlüsse muss die Organisationslehre aus den Erfahrungen ziehen? III. Welches sind die Erfolgsfaktoren von Social Software und wie lassen sich Technologie und Erfolgsfaktoren in das Management übertragen und in Unternehmen nutzen?
    RSWK
    Management / Soziale Software / Leitbild
    Unternehmen / Soziale Software (BVB)
    Subject
    Management / Soziale Software / Leitbild
    Unternehmen / Soziale Software (BVB)
  5. Seehaus, S.: Können Suchmaschinen von Sozialer Software profitieren? (2008) 0.04 
    0.035904054 = product of:
  0.17952026 = sum of:
    0.012879624 = product of:
      0.025759248 = sum of:
        0.025759248 = weight(_text_:online in 2306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025759248 = score(doc=2306,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 2306, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2306)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.10439389 = weight(_text_:soziale in 2306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10439389 = score(doc=2306,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19331455 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.5400209 = fieldWeight in 2306, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2306)
    0.06224675 = weight(_text_:software in 2306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06224675 = score(doc=2306,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.49589399 = fieldWeight in 2306, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2306)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)
    Abstract
    Im Rahmen eines Projekts gingen Stu­dierende an der HAW Hamburg für ihre Auftraggeber Lycos Europe und T-Online der Frage nach, wie sich Inhalte aus sozialen Suchdiensten in die algorithmische Suche einbinden lassen. Dazu analysierten und verglichen sie die Vor- und Nachteile der Systeme, die Relevanz der Sucher­gebnisse, die Benutzerfreundlichkeit sowie die Qualität der Inhalte. Für soziale Software ergaben sich daraus bedeutende Verbesserungspotentiale. Der Text beschreibt die Ergebnisse und die Empfehlungen für Lycos IQ.
  6. Hänger, C.; Krätzsch, C.; Niemann, C.: Was vom Tagging übrig blieb : Erkenntnisse und Einsichten aus zwei Jahren Projektarbeit (2011) 0.03 
    0.027219964 = product of:
  0.10207486 = sum of:
    0.05252234 = sum of:
      0.008049765 = weight(_text_:online in 4519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008049765 = score(doc=4519,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
            0.031640913 = queryNorm
          0.08382809 = fieldWeight in 4519, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4519)
      0.044472575 = weight(_text_:recherche in 4519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044472575 = score(doc=4519,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17150146 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.4202437 = idf(docFreq=531, maxDocs=44218)
            0.031640913 = queryNorm
          0.2593131 = fieldWeight in 4519, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.4202437 = idf(docFreq=531, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4519)
    0.015377863 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 4519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015377863 = score(doc=4519,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.11586332 = fieldWeight in 4519, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4519)
    0.013163733 = weight(_text_:web in 4519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013163733 = score(doc=4519,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.12748088 = fieldWeight in 4519, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4519)
    0.021010926 = product of:
      0.042021852 = sum of:
        0.042021852 = weight(_text_:analyse in 4519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042021852 = score(doc=4519,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16670908 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.25206697 = fieldWeight in 4519, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4519)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Das DFG-Projekt "Collaborative Tagging als neue Form der Sacherschließung" Im Oktober 2008 startete an der Universitätsbibliothek Mannheim das DFG-Projekt "Collaborative Tagging als neue Form der Sacherschließung". Über zwei Jahre hinweg wurde untersucht, welchen Beitrag das Web-2.0-Phänomen Tagging für die inhaltliche Erschließung von bisher nicht erschlossenen und somit der Nutzung kaum zugänglichen Dokumenten leisten kann. Die freie Vergabe von Schlagwörtern in Datenbanken durch die Nutzer selbst hatte sich bereits auf vielen Plattformen als äußerst effizient herausgestellt, insbesondere bei Inhalten, die einer automatischen Erschließung nicht zugänglich sind. So wurden riesige Mengen von Bildern (FlickR), Filmen (YouTube) oder Musik (LastFM) durch das Tagging recherchierbar und identifizierbar gemacht. Die Fragestellung des Projektes war entsprechend, ob und in welcher Qualität sich durch das gleiche Verfahren beispielsweise Dokumente auf Volltextservern oder in elektronischen Zeitschriften erschließen lassen. Für die Beantwortung dieser Frage, die ggf. weitreichende Konsequenzen für die Sacherschließung durch Fachreferenten haben konnte, wurde ein ganzer Komplex von Teilfragen und Teilschritten ermittelt bzw. konzipiert. Im Kern ging es aber in allen Untersuchungsschritten immer um zwei zentrale Dimensionen, nämlich um die "Akzeptanz" und um die "Qualität" des Taggings. Die Akzeptanz des Taggings wurde zunächst bei den Studierenden und Wissenschaftlern der Universität Mannheim evaluiert. Für bestimmte Zeiträume wurden Tagging-Systeme in unterschiedlichen Ausprägungen an die Recherchedienste der Universitätsbibliothek angebunden. Die Akzeptanz der einzelnen Systemausprägungen konnte dann durch die Analyse von Logfiles und durch Datenbankabfragen ausgewertet werden. Für die Qualität der Erschließung wurde auf einen Methodenmix zurückgegriffen, der im Verlauf des Projektes immer wieder an aktuelle Entwicklungen und an die Ergebnisse aus den vorangegangenen Analysen angepaßt wurde. Die Tags wurden hinsichtlich ihres Beitrags zum Information Retrieval mit Verfahren der automatischen Indexierung von Volltexten sowie mit der Erschließung durch Fachreferenten verglichen. Am Schluss sollte eine gut begründete Empfehlung stehen, wie bisher nicht erschlossene Dokumente am besten indexiert werden können: automatisch, mit Tags oder durch eine Kombination von beiden Verfahren.
    Content
    "Was vom Tagging übrig blieb: Empfehlungen und Fazit - Akzeptanz des Taggings Es kann von einer grundsätzlich hohen Bereitschaft der Nutzer ausgegangen werden, wissenschaftliche Quellen durch Tags zu organisieren und zu erschließen. Diese Bereitschaft hängt allerdings wesentlich davon ab, ob ein System durch entsprechende Datenbestände genügend Ergebnisse liefert, um für eine Recherche reizvoll zu erscheinen. Tagging-Systeme, die als "Insellösung" auf die Nutzer einer einzelnen Institution beschränkt sind, werden deshalb nicht ausreichend angenommen. Anbindungen an externe Dienste, deren Datenbestand sich aus vielen verschiedenen Quellen und Verknüpfungen speist, erfahren dagegen eine sehr gute Resonanz. Wissenschaftlichen Bibliotheken wird deshalb empfohlen, möglichst schnelle und einfache Verlinkungen zu erfolgreichen Tagging-Plattformen wie BibSonomy oder Citeulike anzubieten. Die Anzeige der dort verfügbaren Daten im eigenen Katalog ist ebenfalls wünschenswert und wird von den Nutzern befürwortet. - Verfahren zur Analyse von Tagging-Daten Für die Analyse der äußerst heterogenen Textdaten, die in Tagging-Systemen entstehen, wurden spezifische Verfahren entwickelt und angewendet, die je nach Datenausschnitt und Erkenntniszweck optimiert wurden. Nach erfolgreichen Testläufen wurde der Methodenmix jeweils für größere Datenmengen eingesetzt, um die aus den explorativen Studien gewonnen Hypothesen zu überprüfen. Dieses Vorgehen hat sich als äußerst fruchtbar herausgestellt. Alle durchgeführten Schritte und die daraus gewonnenen Erkenntnisse wurden in diversen Artikeln und Beiträgen veröffentlicht sowie auf zahlreichen nationalen und internationalen Konferenzen vorgestellt, um sie der Wissenschaftsgemeinschaft zur Verfügung zu stellen.
    - Struktur der Tags Der Vergleich von zwei großen Tagging-Systemen hat große Ähnlichkeiten in der grammatikalischen Struktur der Tagging-Daten ergeben. Es werden mehrheitlich Substantive bzw. Eigennamen zur Erschließung sowie auch Verben zur Organisation der Quellen eingesetzt. Systembedingt kann außerdem eine große Menge von Wortkombinationen und Wortneuschöpfungen konstatiert werden, die aus den unterschiedlichsten Beweggründen und für sehr unterschiedliche Zwecke gebildet werden. Nur ein geringer Teil der Tags entspricht den formalen Kriterien kontrollierter Vokabulare. Eine besondere Hierarchisierung der Tags innerhalb eines Tagging-Systems über den Indikator der Häufigkeit der Nutzung hinaus hat sich nicht ergeben. In inhaltlicher Hinsicht hat sich eine klare Dominanz informatiknaher bzw. naturwissenschaftlicher Disziplinen gezeigt, wobei es sich hierbei um systemspezifische Präferenzen handelt. Insgesamt ist eine klare Tendenz zu zunehmender inhaltlicher Diversifikation in den Tagging-Systemen zu erkennen, was mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit der wachsenden Akzeptanz durch breitere Nutzergruppen zuzuschreiben ist. - Qualität der Tags Bei der Evaluation der Qualität der Tags bestätigte sich die Einschätzung, dass sich die Verschlagwortung mittels Tagging von jener durch Fachreferenten grundsätzlich unterscheidet. Nur ein kleiner Teil der Konzepte wurde in den beiden Systemen semantisch identisch oder wenigstens analog vergeben. Grundsätzlich liegen für eine Ressource fast immer mehr Tags als Schlagwörter vor, die zudem wesentlich häufiger exklusiv im Tagging-System zu finden sind. Diese Tatsache berührt jedoch nicht den inhaltlichen Erschließungsgrad einer Quelle, der sich trotz einer geringeren Anzahl an SWD-Schlagwörtern pro Ressource in beiden Systemen als gleichwertig gezeigt hat. Dennoch ist das Ausmaß der semantischen Abdeckung des Taggings überraschend, da sie der allgemeinen Erwartungshaltung von einer deutlich höheren Qualität der Verschlagwortung durch die professionelle Inhaltserschließung teilweise widerspricht. Diese Erwartung ist zumindest bezüglich der inhaltlichen Dimension zu relativieren.
    - Fazit Der Beitrag des Taggings im Rahmen des bibliothekarischen Kontextes ist vor allem in der ergänzenden Erweiterung der Recherche- und Literaturverwaltungsfunktionalitäten der Online-Kataloge zu sehen. Durch Tagging können diese um eine nutzerorientierte Komponente ergänzt werden und signifkant an Attraktivität gewinnen. Systeme mit einem begrenzten Nutzerkreis sind allerdings zugunsten der Anbindung an etablierte Systeme zu vernachlässigen. Diese können einen parallel existierenden Zugang zu den vorhandenen Ressourcen liefern, der seine Stärken in einer explorativen, eher "unscharfen" Recherche entfaltet. Somit wird einem speziellen Bedürfnis der Nutzerinnen und Nutzer Rechnung getragen, dem durch die voraussetzungsreiche Verwendung von präzisen bibliothekarischen Schlagwörtern nicht immer entsprochen werden kann. Bezüglich der inhaltlichen Abdeckung einer Ressource erfüllt das Tagging jedenfalls die Anforderungen eines Recherchesystems, insofern eine ausreichende Mindestanzahl von Tags vorliegt. Natürlich ist es sehr wichtig, die Nutzerinnen und Nutzer ausreichend darüber zu informieren, dass Tagging - wie alle anderen Erschließungsmethoden auch - keine vollständige Abbildung der verfügbaren Ressourcen leistet. Es stellt lediglich einen von verschiedenen Zugangswegen mit spezifischen Besonderheiten und Ergebnissen zur Verfügung. Eine Kombination der Erschließungsverfahren "Fachreferenten", "Tagging" und "automatisch" ist hingegen nur für sehr spezielle Zielsetzungen und als Abfolge von Ergänzungs- und Aktualisierungsschritten sinnvoll. Eine gleichzeitige Integration der Verfahren würde aufgrund ihrer erheblichen Unterschiede eine deutliche Verschlechterung der Erschließungsqualität zur Folge haben. Sinnvoll ist daher eine gleichberechtigte Bereitstellung dieser Zugangswege bei sichtbarer Trennung für die Nutzer. Auf diese Weise können die Vorteile aller Verfahren genutzt werden, ohne sich ihre jeweiligen Nachteile zu eigen zu machen."
    Object
    Web 2.0
  7. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.02 
    0.024605988 = product of:
  0.092272446 = sum of:
    0.00910727 = product of:
      0.01821454 = sum of:
        0.01821454 = weight(_text_:online in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01821454 = score(doc=2666,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.18968134 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.014893063 = weight(_text_:web in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014893063 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.0596983 = weight(_text_:site in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0596983 = score(doc=2666,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1738463 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.343397 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.008573813 = product of:
      0.017147627 = sum of:
        0.017147627 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017147627 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  8. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.02 
    0.019703986 = product of:
  0.09851993 = sum of:
    0.022339594 = weight(_text_:web in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022339594 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
    0.06331961 = weight(_text_:site in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06331961 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1738463 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.3642275 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
    0.01286072 = product of:
      0.02572144 = sum of:
        0.02572144 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02572144 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)
    Abstract
    Some members of the library community, including the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, have suggested that libraries should open up their catalogs to allow users to add descriptive tags to the bibliographic data in catalog records. The web site LibraryThing currently permits its members to add such user tags to its records for books and therefore provides a useful resource to contrast with library bibliographic records. A comparison between the LibraryThing tags for a group of books and the library-supplied subject headings for the same books shows that users and catalogers approach these descriptors very differently. Because of these differences, user tags can enhance subject access to library materials, but they cannot entirely replace controlled vocabularies such as the Library of Congress subject headings.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  9. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.02 
    0.019329576 = product of:
  0.09664788 = sum of:
    0.052194204 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052194204 = score(doc=3387,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.3932532 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
    0.031592958 = weight(_text_:web in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031592958 = score(doc=3387,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = 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)
    0.01286072 = product of:
      0.02572144 = sum of:
        0.02572144 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02572144 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)
    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
  10. Ransom, N.; Rafferty, P.: Facets of user-assigned tags and their effectiveness in image retrieval (2011) 0.02 
    0.015886486 = product of:
  0.07943243 = sum of:
    0.008049765 = product of:
      0.01609953 = sum of:
        0.01609953 = weight(_text_:online in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01609953 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.01861633 = weight(_text_:web in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01861633 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 296, 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=296)
    0.052766338 = weight(_text_:site in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052766338 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1738463 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.3035229 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This study aims to consider the value of user-assigned image tags by comparing the facets that are represented in image tags with those that are present in image queries to see if there is a similarity in the way that users describe and search for images. Design/methodology/approach - A sample dataset was created by downloading a selection of images and associated tags from Flickr, the online photo-sharing web site. The tags were categorised using image facets from Shatford's matrix, which has been widely used in previous research into image indexing and retrieval. The facets present in the image tags were then compared with the results of previous research into image queries. Findings - The results reveal that there are broad similarities between the facets present in image tags and queries, with people and objects being the most common facet, followed by location. However, the results also show that there are differences in the level of specificity between tags and queries, with image tags containing more generic terms and image queries consisting of more specific terms. The study concludes that users do describe and search for images using similar image facets, but that measures to close the gap between specific queries and generic tags would improve the value of user tags in indexing image collections. Originality/value - Research into tagging has tended to focus on textual resources with less research into non-textual documents. In particular, little research has been undertaken into how user tags compare to the terms used in search queries, particularly in the context of digital images.
  11. Stuart, E.: Flickr: organizing and tagging images online (2019) 0.02 
    0.015432227 = product of:
  0.1157417 = sum of:
    0.011269671 = product of:
      0.022539342 = sum of:
        0.022539342 = weight(_text_:online in 5233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022539342 = score(doc=5233,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 5233, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5233)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.104472026 = weight(_text_:site in 5233) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.104472026 = score(doc=5233,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1738463 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.60094476 = fieldWeight in 5233, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5233)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    Flickr was launched when digital cameras first began to outsell analog cameras, and people were drawn to the site for the opportunities it offered them to store, organize, and share their images, as well as for the connections that could be made with other like-minded people. This article examines the links between Flickr's success and how images are organized within the site, as well as the types of people and organizations that use Flickr and their motivations for doing so. Factors that have contributed to Flickr's demise in popularity will be explored, and the article finishes with some suggestions for how Flickr could develop in the future, along with some conclusions for image organization.
  12. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.01 
    0.0149820745 = product of:
  0.07491037 = sum of:
    0.027509436 = weight(_text_:software in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027509436 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
    0.03224443 = weight(_text_:web in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03224443 = score(doc=2652,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = 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)
    0.015156505 = product of:
      0.03031301 = sum of:
        0.03031301 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03031301 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)
    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
  13. Derntl, M.; Hampel, T.; Motschnig, R.; Pitner, T.: Social Tagging und Inclusive Universal Access (2008) 0.01 
    0.014651784 = product of:
  0.109888375 = sum of:
    0.07829542 = weight(_text_:soziale in 2864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07829542 = score(doc=2864,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19331455 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.40501565 = fieldWeight in 2864, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2864)
    0.031592958 = weight(_text_:web in 2864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031592958 = score(doc=2864,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2864, 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=2864)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    Der vorliegende Artikel beleuchtet und bewertet Social Tagging als aktuelles Phänomen des Web 2.0 im Kontext bekannter Techniken der semantischen Datenorganisation. Tagging wird in einen Raum verwandter Ordnungs- und Strukturierungsansätze eingeordnet, um die fundamentalen Grundlagen des Social Tagging zu identifizieren und zuzuweisen. Dabei wird Tagging anhand des Inclusive Universal Access Paradigmas bewertet, das technische als auch menschlich-soziale Kriterien für die inklusive und barrierefreie Bereitstellung und Nutzung von Diensten definiert. Anhand dieser Bewertung werden fundamentale Prinzipien des "Inclusive Social Tagging" hergeleitet, die der Charakterisierung und Bewertung gängiger Tagging-Funktionalitäten in verbreiteten Web-2.0-Diensten dienen. Aus der Bewertung werden insbesondere Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten von Social Tagging und unterstützenden Diensten erkennbar.
  14. Heck, T.: Analyse von sozialen Informationen für Autorenempfehlungen (2012) 0.01 
    0.0143212015 = product of:
  0.10740901 = sum of:
    0.07829542 = weight(_text_:soziale in 407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07829542 = score(doc=407,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19331455 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.40501565 = fieldWeight in 407, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=407)
    0.029113589 = product of:
      0.058227178 = sum of:
        0.058227178 = weight(_text_:analyse in 407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058227178 = score(doc=407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670908 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.3492742 = fieldWeight in 407, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    Kollaborationen mit Kollegen sind für fast alle Wissenschaftler bedeutend. Forscher bauen sich im Laufe ihrer Karriere ein soziales Netzwerk mit Kontakten zu anderen Wissenschaftlern mit ähnlichen Interessen und Forschungsschwerpunkten auf. Ein Empfehlungssystem könnte einer Person dabei helfen, geeignete Kollegen und neue Kooperationspartner zu finden. Für einen Wissenschaftler ist seine Reputation sehr wichtig, die mit Zitations- und Referenzdaten analysiert werden kann. Solche Daten können dazu dienen, Cluster mit ähnlichen Forschern zu ermitteln, die wiederum für ein Empfehlungssystem verwendet werden können. Darüber hinaus enthalten neue Dienste des sozialen Webs, wie Social-Bookmarking-Systeme, weitere Informationen über Wissenschaftler, auf Basis derer Personenvorschläge gemacht werden können. Im Folgenden wird ein Versuch beschrieben, verschiedene soziale Informationen über Wissenschaftler zu nutzen, um diesen relevante Kooperationspartner vorzuschlagen.
  15. Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008) 0.01 
    0.014179844 = product of:
  0.10634883 = sum of:
    0.091344655 = weight(_text_:soziale in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.091344655 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19331455 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.47251827 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
    0.015004174 = product of:
      0.030008348 = sum of:
        0.030008348 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030008348 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, 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=2889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    Als dynamische und einfache Form der Auszeichnung von Ressourcen kann sich Tagging im E-Learning positiv auf Partizipation, soziale Navigation und das Verständnis der Lernenden auswirken. Dieser Beitrag beleuchtet verschiedene Möglichkeiten des Einsatzes von Social Tagging in Lehrportalen und E-LearningKursen. Hierzu werden zunächst drei konkrete Anwendungsfälle dargestellt. Anschließend werden aus den Anwendungsfällen gewonnene Erkenntnisse für Lehr-/Lernszenarien zusammengefasst.
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:22:44
  16. Hotho, A.; Jäschke, R.; Benz, D.; Grahl, M.; Krause, B.; Schmitz, C.; Stumme, G.: Social Bookmarking am Beispiel BibSonomy (2009) 0.01 
    0.012054562 = product of:
  0.090409204 = sum of:
    0.051591087 = weight(_text_:web in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051591087 = score(doc=4873,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.49962097 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
    0.03881812 = product of:
      0.07763624 = sum of:
        0.07763624 = weight(_text_:analyse in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07763624 = score(doc=4873,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670908 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.46569893 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    BibSonomy ist ein kooperatives Verschlagwortungssystem (Social Bookmarking System), betrieben vom Fachgebiet Wissensverarbeitung der Universität Kassel. Es erlaubt das Speichern und Organisieren von Web-Lesezeichen und Metadaten für wissenschaftliche Publikationen. In diesem Beitrag beschreiben wir die von BibSonomy bereitgestellte Funktionalität, die dahinter stehende Architektur sowie das zugrunde liegende Datenmodell. Ferner erläutern wir Anwendungsbeispiele und gehen auf Methoden zur Analyse der in BibSonomy und ähnlichen Systemen enthaltenen Daten ein.
    Source
    Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini
  17. Frohner, H.: Social Tagging : Grundlagen, Anwendungen, Auswirkungen auf Wissensorganisation und soziale Strukturen der User (2010) 0.01 
    0.011181669 = product of:
  0.08386251 = sum of:
    0.06524619 = weight(_text_:soziale in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06524619 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19331455 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.33751306 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1096387 = idf(docFreq=266, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
    0.01861633 = weight(_text_:web in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01861633 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4723, 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=4723)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Series
    Web 2.0
  18. Regulski, K.: Aufwand und Nutzen beim Einsatz von Social-Bookmarking-Services als Nachweisinstrument für wissenschaftliche Forschungsartikel am Beispiel von BibSonomy (2007) 0.01 
    0.009449085 = product of:
  0.070868134 = sum of:
    0.041082006 = product of:
      0.08216401 = sum of:
        0.08216401 = weight(_text_:recherche in 4595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08216401 = score(doc=4595,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17150146 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4202437 = idf(docFreq=531, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.47908637 = fieldWeight in 4595, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4202437 = idf(docFreq=531, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4595)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.029786127 = weight(_text_:web in 4595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029786127 = score(doc=4595,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 4595, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4595)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    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.
  19. Huang, C.; Fu, T.; Chen, H.: Text-based video content classification for online video-sharing sites (2010) 0.01 
    0.009196267 = product of:
  0.068972 = sum of:
    0.019717818 = product of:
      0.039435636 = sum of:
        0.039435636 = weight(_text_:online in 3452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039435636 = score(doc=3452,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.41067213 = fieldWeight in 3452, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3452)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.04925418 = weight(_text_:web in 3452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04925418 = score(doc=3452,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.47698978 = fieldWeight in 3452, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3452)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    With the emergence of Web 2.0, sharing personal content, communicating ideas, and interacting with other online users in Web 2.0 communities have become daily routines for online users. User-generated data from Web 2.0 sites provide rich personal information (e.g., personal preferences and interests) and can be utilized to obtain insight about cyber communities and their social networks. Many studies have focused on leveraging user-generated information to analyze blogs and forums, but few studies have applied this approach to video-sharing Web sites. In this study, we propose a text-based framework for video content classification of online-video sharing Web sites. Different types of user-generated data (e.g., titles, descriptions, and comments) were used as proxies for online videos, and three types of text features (lexical, syntactic, and content-specific features) were extracted. Three feature-based classification techniques (C4.5, Naïve Bayes, and Support Vector Machine) were used to classify videos. To evaluate the proposed framework, user-generated data from candidate videos, which were identified by searching user-given keywords on YouTube, were first collected. Then, a subset of the collected data was randomly selected and manually tagged by users as our experiment data. The experimental results showed that the proposed approach was able to classify online videos based on users' interests with accuracy rates up to 87.2%, and all three types of text features contributed to discriminating videos. Support Vector Machine outperformed C4.5 and Naïve Bayes techniques in our experiments. In addition, our case study further demonstrated that accurate video-classification results are very useful for identifying implicit cyber communities on video-sharing Web sites.
    Object
    Web 2.0
  20. Hammond, T.; Hannay, T.; Lund, B.; Scott, J.: Social bookmarking tools (I) : a general review (2005) 0.01 
    0.008545522 = product of:
  0.06409141 = sum of:
    0.027232954 = weight(_text_:software in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027232954 = score(doc=1188,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.21695362 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
    0.036858454 = weight(_text_:web in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036858454 = score(doc=1188,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    Because, to paraphrase a pop music lyric from a certain rock and roll band of yesterday, "the Web is old, the Web is new, the Web is all, the Web is you", it seems like we might have to face up to some of these stark realities. With the introduction of new social software applications such as blogs, wikis, newsfeeds, social networks, and bookmarking tools (the subject of this paper), the claim that Shelley Powers makes in a Burningbird blog entry seems apposite: "This is the user's web now, which means it's my web and I can make the rules." Reinvention is revolution - it brings us always back to beginnings. We are here going to remind you of hyperlinks in all their glory, sell you on the idea of bookmarking hyperlinks, point you at other folks who are doing the same, and tell you why this is a good thing. Just as long as those hyperlinks (or let's call them plain old links) are managed, tagged, commented upon, and published onto the Web, they represent a user's own personal library placed on public record, which - when aggregated with other personal libraries - allows for rich, social networking opportunities. Why spill any ink (digital or not) in rewriting what someone else has already written about instead of just pointing at the original story and adding the merest of titles, descriptions and tags for future reference? More importantly, why not make these personal 'link playlists' available to oneself and to others from whatever browser or computer one happens to be using at the time? This paper reviews some current initiatives, as of early 2005, in providing public link management applications on the Web - utilities that are often referred to under the general moniker of 'social bookmarking tools'. There are a couple of things going on here: 1) server-side software aimed specifically at managing links with, crucially, a strong, social networking flavour, and 2) an unabashedly open and unstructured approach to tagging, or user classification, of those links.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 71
  • d 30
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 87
  • el 9
  • m 9
  • s 3
  • b 2
  • x 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications