Search (529 results, page 1 of 27)

0.11309586 = product of:
  0.22619171 = sum of:
    0.22619171 = sum of:
      0.19879878 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19879878 = score(doc=4202,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.6781442 = fieldWeight in 4202, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4202)
      0.02739294 = weight(_text_:22 in 4202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02739294 = score(doc=4202,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4202, 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=4202)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper is the final one in a series which has tried to give an overview of so-called transformational areas of digital library technology. The aim has been to assess how much real transformation these applications can bring about, in terms of creating genuine user benefit and also changing everyday library practice. Design/methodology/approach - The paper provides a summary of some of the legal and ethical issues associated with web 2.0 applications in libraries, associated with a brief retrospective view of some relevant literature. Findings - Although web 2.0 innovations have had a massive impact on the larger World Wide Web, the practical impact on library service delivery has been limited to date. What probably can be termed transformational in the effect of web 2.0 developments on library and information work is their effect on some underlying principles of professional practice. Research limitations/implications - The legal and ethical challenges of incorporating web 2.0 platforms into mainstream institutional service delivery need to be subject to further research, so that the risks associated with these innovations are better understood at the strategic and policy-making level. Practical implications - This paper makes some recommendations about new principles of library and information practice which will help practitioners make better sense of these innovations in their overall information environment. Social implications - The paper puts in context some of the more problematic social impacts of web 2.0 innovations, without denying the undeniable positive contribution of social networking to the sphere of human interactivity. Originality/value - This paper raises some cautionary points about web 2.0 applications without adopting a precautionary approach of total prohibition. However, none of the suggestions or analysis in this piece should be considered to constitute legal advice. If such advice is required, the reader should consult appropriate legal professionals.

Date

22. 1.2011 17:54:04

0.11104417 = product of:
  0.22208834 = sum of:
    0.22208834 = sum of:
      0.18784717 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18784717 = score(doc=3733,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.640786 = fieldWeight in 3733, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3733)
      0.034241177 = weight(_text_:22 in 3733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034241177 = score(doc=3733,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3733, 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=3733)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The focus of the present research has been the development and the application to Virtual Archaeology of a Web-Based framework for Learning Objects indexing and retrieval. The paper presents the main outcomes of a experimentation carried out by an interdisciplinary group of Federico II University of Naples. Our equipe is composed by researchers both in ICT and in Humanities disciplines, in particular in the domain of Virtual Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Informatics in order to develop specific ICT methodological approaches to Virtual Archaeology. The methodological background is the progressive diffusion of Web 2.0 technologies and the attempt to analyze their impact and perspectives in the Cultural Heritage field. In particular, we approached the specific requirements of the so called Learning 2.0, and the possibility to improve the automation of modular courseware generation in Virtual Archaeology Didactics. The developed framework was called SEMANTICA, and it was applied to Virtual Archaeology Domain Ontologies in order to generate a didactic course in a semi-automated way. The main results of this test and the first students feedback on the course fruition will be presented and discussed..

Object

ARCHAEOLOGY 2.0

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.0835346 = product of:
  0.1670692 = sum of:
    0.1670692 = sum of:
      0.13282801 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13282801 = score(doc=2934,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.45310414 = fieldWeight in 2934, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2934)
      0.034241177 = weight(_text_:22 in 2934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034241177 = score(doc=2934,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2934, 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=2934)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Tags generated by domain experts reaching a consensus under social influence reflect the core concepts of the tagged resource. Such tags can act as navigational cues that enable users to discover meaningful and relevant information in a Web 2.0 environment. This is particularly critical for nonexperts for understanding formal academic or scientific resources, also known as hard content. The goal of this study was to develop a novel one-bit comparison (OBC) metric and to assess in what circumstances a set of tags describing a hard-content resource is mature and representative. We compared OBC with the conventional Shannon entropy approach to determine performance when distinguishing tags generated by domain experts and nonexperts in the early and later stages under social influence. The results indicated that OBC can accurately distinguish mature tags generated by a strong expert consensus from other tags, and outperform Shannon entropy. The findings support tag-based learning, and provide insights and tools for the design of applications involving tags, such as tag recommendation and tag-based organization.

Date

7. 5.2016 20:13:22

0.0835346 = product of:
  0.1670692 = sum of:
    0.1670692 = sum of:
      0.13282801 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13282801 = score(doc=3343,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.45310414 = fieldWeight in 3343, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3343)
      0.034241177 = weight(_text_:22 in 3343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034241177 = score(doc=3343,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3343, 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=3343)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16.11.2017 13:04:22

Object

Web 2.0

0.07689886 = product of:
  0.15379772 = sum of:
    0.15379772 = sum of:
      0.1127083 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1127083 = score(doc=1445,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.3844716 = fieldWeight in 1445, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1445)
      0.04108941 = weight(_text_:22 in 1445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04108941 = score(doc=1445,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1445, 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=1445)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recent approaches to KO have explored the notion of intertextuality and considered ways in which such abstract concepts derived from literary theory might form the foundation for the design of novel and rich information retrieval systems. In this paper, the notion of intertextuality is examined, and its use by knowledge organization researchers explored. Gerard Genette's work in particular has been used with some success to map out the possibilities offered by applying the concept of intertextuality to the design of information retrieval systems. The paper will examine some KO systems which reveal the traces of intertextual poetics in their design, including the FRBR model which in its mapping of intertextuality, articulates some of Genette's categories while stopping short of actualising the more subjective and interpretative categories. The paper concludes with speculation about whether and how these categories might be accommodated in a Web 2.0 interactive digital bibliosphere.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.06901945 = product of:
  0.1380389 = sum of:
    0.1380389 = product of:
      0.2760778 = sum of:
        0.2760778 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2760778 = score(doc=4766,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.9417592 = fieldWeight in 4766, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4766)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Is Web 2.0 more than a buzzword? In recent years, technologists and others have heatedly debated this question, even in Wikipedia, itself an example of Web 2.0. From the perspective of the present study, Web 2.0 may indeed be a buzzword, but more substantially it is also an example of an organizing vision that drives a community's discourse about certain new Information Technology (IT), serving to advance the technology's adoption and diffusion. Every organizing vision has a career that reflects its construction over time, and in the present study we examine Web 2.0's career as captured in its Wikipedia entry over a 5-year period, finding that it falls into three distinct periods termed Germination, Growth, and Maturation. The findings reveal how Wikipedia, as a discourse vehicle, treats new IT and its many buzzwords, and more broadly captures the careers of their organizing visions. Too, they further our understanding of Wikipedia as a new encyclopedic form, providing novel insights into its uses, its community of contributors, and their editing activities, as well as the dynamics of article construction.

Object

Web 2.0

0.06689989 = product of:
  0.13379978 = sum of:
    0.13379978 = product of:
      0.4013993 = sum of:
        0.4013993 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4013993 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42852643 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.066414006 = product of:
  0.13282801 = sum of:
    0.13282801 = product of:
      0.26565602 = sum of:
        0.26565602 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 5162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26565602 = score(doc=5162,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.9062083 = fieldWeight in 5162, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5162)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

BIBFRAME 2.0

0.06574651 = product of:
  0.13149302 = sum of:
    0.13149302 = product of:
      0.26298603 = sum of:
        0.26298603 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26298603 = score(doc=1479,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.8971004 = fieldWeight in 1479, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Catalogue 2.0: the future of the library catalogue. Ed. by Sally Chambers

0.06574651 = product of:
  0.13149302 = sum of:
    0.13149302 = product of:
      0.26298603 = sum of:
        0.26298603 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26298603 = score(doc=1480,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.8971004 = fieldWeight in 1480, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1480)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Catalogue 2.0: the future of the library catalogue. Ed. by Sally Chambers

0.064082384 = product of:
  0.12816477 = sum of:
    0.12816477 = sum of:
      0.09392358 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09392358 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.320393 = fieldWeight in 3524, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3524)
      0.034241177 = weight(_text_:22 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034241177 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3524, 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=3524)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Tags (keywords freely assigned by users to describe web content) have become highly popular on Web 2.0 applications, because of the strong stimuli and easiness for users to create and describe their own content. This increase in tag popularity has led to a vast literature on tag recommendation methods. These methods aim at assisting users in the tagging process, possibly increasing the quality of the generated tags and, consequently, improving the quality of the information retrieval (IR) services that rely on tags as data sources. Regardless of the numerous and diversified previous studies on tag recommendation, to our knowledge, no previous work has summarized and organized them into a single survey article. In this article, we propose a taxonomy for tag recommendation methods, classifying them according to the target of the recommendations, their objectives, exploited data sources, and underlying techniques. Moreover, we provide a critical overview of these methods, pointing out their advantages and disadvantages. Finally, we describe the main open challenges related to the field, such as tag ambiguity, cold start, and evaluation issues.

Date

16.11.2017 13:30:22

0.057516214 = product of:
  0.11503243 = sum of:
    0.11503243 = product of:
      0.23006485 = sum of:
        0.23006485 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 5172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23006485 = score(doc=5172,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.7847994 = fieldWeight in 5172, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5172)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

One of the big challenges facing academic libraries today is to increase the relevance of the libraries to their user communities. If the libraries can increase the visibility of their resources on the open web, it will increase the chances of the libraries to reach to their user communities via the user's first search experience. BIBFRAME and library Linked Data will enable libraries to publish their resources in a way that the Web understands, consume Linked Data to enrich their resources relevant to the libraries' user communities, and visualize networks across collections. However, one of the important steps for transitioning to BIBFRAME and library Linked Data involves crosswalks, mapping MARC fields and subfields across data models and performing necessary data reformatting to be in compliance with the specifications of the new model, which is currently BIBFRAME 2.0. This article looks into how the Library of Congress has mapped library bibliographic data from the MARC format to the BIBFRAME 2.0 model and vocabulary published and updated since April 2016, available from http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/index.html based on the recently released conversion specifications and converter, developed by the Library of Congress with input from many community members. The BIBFRAME 2.0 standard and conversion tools will enable libraries to transform bibliographic data from MARC into BIBFRAME 2.0, which introduces a Linked Data model as the improved method of bibliographic control for the future, and make bibliographic information more useful within and beyond library communities.

Object

BIBFRAME 2.0

0.05635415 = product of:
  0.1127083 = sum of:
    0.1127083 = product of:
      0.2254166 = sum of:
        0.2254166 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2254166 = score(doc=4907,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.7689432 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Services in Web 2.0 generate a large quantity of information, distributed over a range of resources (e.g. photos, URLs, videos) and integrated into different platforms (e.g. social bookmarking systems, sharing platforms (Peters, 2009). To adequately use this mass of information and to extract it from the platforms, users must be equipped with suitable tools and knowledge. After all, the best information is useless if users cannot find it: 'The model of information consumption relies on the information being found' (Vander Wal, 2004). In Web 2.0, the retrieval component has been established through so-called folksonomies (Vander Wal, 2005a), which are considered as several combinations of an information resource, one or more freely chosen keywords ('tags') and a user. Web 2.0 services that use folksonomies as an indexing and retrieval tool are defined as 'collaborative information services' because they allow for the collaborative creation of a public database that is accessible to all users (registered, where necessary) via the tags of the folksonomy (Ding et al., 2009; Heymann, Paepcke and Garcia-Molina, 2010).

Object

Web 2.0

0.05635415 = product of:
  0.1127083 = sum of:
    0.1127083 = product of:
      0.2254166 = sum of:
        0.2254166 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2254166 = score(doc=1477,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.7689432 = fieldWeight in 1477, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1477)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Catalogue 2.0: the future of the library catalogue. Ed. by Sally Chambers

0.05635415 = product of:
  0.1127083 = sum of:
    0.1127083 = product of:
      0.2254166 = sum of:
        0.2254166 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2254166 = score(doc=1481,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.7689432 = fieldWeight in 1481, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1481)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Catalogue 2.0: the future of the library catalogue. Ed. by Sally Chambers

0.05250488 = product of:
  0.10500976 = sum of:
    0.10500976 = product of:
      0.21001951 = sum of:
        0.21001951 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21001951 = score(doc=3621,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.71642053 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to introduce the term Information Literacy 2.0 as a subset of information literacy, to describe its development and significance and give an outline of its underlying theoretical assumptions. Design/methodology/approach - The paper first examines the grounds for the possible re-conceptualizations in the field of information literacy and identifies the current developments in the information universe as the principal drive for perception shifts. Based on a literature review and a descriptive analysis of contrasting features of library user education, information literacy and Information literacy 2.0, the paper highlights the main foci of paradigm shifts. Findings - The paper found that the new meaning and understanding of the central conceptions in information literacy are shifting the focus of classical information literacy towards Information literacy 2.0. Many of the aspects of current information literacy practices originate from a print-based culture, which is incongruent with the transient and hybrid nature of digital environments. These radically changing environments are causing the appearance of anomalies in the information literacy paradigm, which could effectively be resolved through the introduction of a sub-concept of information literacy. Practical implications - The article specifies the possibilities for putting theoretical conceptualizations of Information literacy 2.0 into practice by determining the range of shifts in information literacy activities and identifying how new practices differ from the earlier approaches. Originality/value - The study attempts to advance the research field of information literacy by proposing a new outlook on information literacy through the integration of its underlying theoretical conceptions and practical applications.

0.05250488 = product of:
  0.10500976 = sum of:
    0.10500976 = product of:
      0.21001951 = sum of:
        0.21001951 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21001951 = score(doc=3631,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.71642053 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of information literacy (IL) and digital literacy under the circumstances and challenges of the Web 2.0 environment. Design/methodology/approach - Desk research was done in order acquire a picture about the nature of the Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 in regard to their influence on literacy requirements. The hypothesis that differential literacies have to be offered to diverging groups of users, similarly to traditional library services that cater for different user needs depending on the type of the given library was tested. Findings - Professional goals characterize first of all different groups of professionals, teaching staff and researchers, as well as students. Thus, their need in information is different from that of other categories of users. Consequently, they require literacies similar to services traditionally offered by academic and special libraries. Amateur content is more compatible with the mission of public libraries and it is more suitable for Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 applications. Research limitations/implications - New principles of IL are outlined in this paper which will help practitioners in designing goal-oriented IL education. Practical implications - The practical implications need to be studied in the course of further research. Originality/value - The findings represent a small but valuable asset to the discussion about new approaches towards IL education.

0.051265903 = product of:
  0.102531806 = sum of:
    0.102531806 = sum of:
      0.07513887 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07513887 = score(doc=774,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.2563144 = fieldWeight in 774, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=774)
      0.02739294 = weight(_text_:22 in 774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02739294 = score(doc=774,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 774, 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=774)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

C. Begriffsarbeit in der Wissensorganisation Ingetraut Dahlberg: Begriffsarbeit in der Wissensorganisation Claudio Gnoli, Gabriele Merli, Gianni Pavan, Elisabetta Bernuzzi, and Marco Priano: Freely faceted classification for a Web-based bibliographic archive The BioAcoustic Reference Database Stefan Hauser: Terminologiearbeit im Bereich Wissensorganisation - Vergleich dreier Publikationen anhand der Darstellung des Themenkomplexes Thesaurus Daniel Kless: Erstellung eines allgemeinen Standards zur Wissensorganisation: Nutzen, Möglichkeiten, Herausforderungen, Wege D. Kommunikation und Lernen Gerald Beck und Simon Meissner: Strukturierung und Vermittlung von heterogenen (Nicht-)Wissensbeständen in der Risikokommunikation Angelo Chianese, Francesca Cantone, Mario Caropreso, and Vincenzo Moscato: ARCHAEOLOGY 2.0: Cultural E-Learning tools and distributed repositories supported by SEMANTICA, a System for Learning Object Retrieval and Adaptive Courseware Generation for e-learning environments Sonja Hierl, Lydia Bauer, Nadja Böller und Josef Herget: Kollaborative Konzeption von Ontologien in der Hochschullehre: Theorie, Chancen und mögliche Umsetzung Marc Wilhelm Küster, Christoph Ludwig, Yahya Al-Haff und Andreas Aschenbrenner: TextGrid: eScholarship und der Fortschritt der Wissenschaft durch vernetzte Angebote

0.04880413 = product of:
  0.09760826 = sum of:
    0.09760826 = product of:
      0.19521652 = sum of:
        0.19521652 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19521652 = score(doc=3423,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.66592443 = fieldWeight in 3423, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

New Web 2.0 technologies such as wikis permit any organizational member of a virtual community of practice (CoP) to dynamically edit, integrate, and rewrite content (what we call knowledge shaping) as well as contribute personal knowledge. Previous research on factors that motivate contribution in virtual CoPs has focused exclusively on factors explaining why people contribute their personal knowledge, with no research focused on why people make the knowledge-shaping contributions (rewriting, integrating, and restructuring pages) which are possible with wikis. We hypothesize that factors that explain frequency of contribution will be different for those who shape from those who contribute only their personal knowledge. The results support our hypotheses. In addition, we find that shapers are not more likely to be managers or members of a community's core group who might typically serve in an administrator role, contrary to prior expectations. The implications of using Web 2.0 tools to encourage this shaping behavior are discussed.

Object

Web 2.0

0.04696179 = product of:
  0.09392358 = sum of:
    0.09392358 = product of:
      0.18784717 = sum of:
        0.18784717 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18784717 = score(doc=3452,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.640786 = fieldWeight in 3452, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3452)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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