-
Peters, I.: Folksonomies und kollaborative Informationsdienste : eine Alternative zur Websuche? (2011)
0.02
0.019823896 = product of:
0.12555134 = sum of:
0.034329474 = weight(_text_:web in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034329474 = score(doc=343,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
0.034329474 = weight(_text_:web in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034329474 = score(doc=343,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
0.056892388 = weight(_text_:suche in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056892388 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12883182 = queryWeight, product of:
4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.441602 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
- Abstract
- Folksonomies ermöglichen den Nutzern in Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten den Zugang zu verschiedenartigen Informationsressourcen. In welchen Fällen beide Bestandteile des Web 2.0 am besten für das Information Retrieval geeignet sind und wo sie die Websuche ggf. ersetzen können, wird in diesem Beitrag diskutiert. Dazu erfolgt eine detaillierte Betrachtung der Reichweite von Social-Bookmarking-Systemen und Sharing-Systemen sowie der Retrievaleffektivität von Folksonomies innerhalb von Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten.
- Source
- Handbuch Internet-Suchmaschinen, 2: Neue Entwicklungen in der Web-Suche. Hrsg.: D. Lewandowski
-
Peters, I.: Folksonomies, social tagging and information retrieval (2011)
0.02
0.017799767 = product of:
0.11273186 = sum of:
0.036411904 = weight(_text_:web in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036411904 = score(doc=4907,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
0.036411904 = weight(_text_:web in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036411904 = score(doc=4907,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
0.03990805 = weight(_text_:services in 4907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03990805 = score(doc=4907,freq=6.0), product of:
0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.42154622 = fieldWeight in 4907, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4907)
0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
- 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
-
Carlin, S.A.: Schlagwortvergabe durch Nutzende (Tagging) als Hilfsmittel zur Suche im Web : Ansatz, Modelle, Realisierungen (2006)
0.02
0.01632747 = product of:
0.10340732 = sum of:
0.033924792 = weight(_text_:web in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033924792 = score(doc=2476,freq=10.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
0.033924792 = weight(_text_:web in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033924792 = score(doc=2476,freq=10.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
0.035557743 = weight(_text_:suche in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035557743 = score(doc=2476,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12883182 = queryWeight, product of:
4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.27600124 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
- Abstract
- Nach dem zu Beginn der Ära des World Wide Web von Hand gepflegte Linklisten und -Verzeichnisse und an Freunde und Kollegen per E-Mail verschickte Links genügten, um die Informationen zu finden, nach denen man suchte, waren schon bald Volltextsuchmaschinen und halbautomatisch betriebene Kataloge notwendig, um den mehr und mehr anschwellenden Informationsfluten des Web Herr zu werden. Heute bereits sind diese Dämme gebrochen und viele Millionen Websites halten Billionen an Einzelseiten mit Informationen vor, von Datenbanken und anderweitig versteckten Informationen ganz zu schweigen. Mit Volltextsuchmaschinen erreicht man bei dieser Masse keine befriedigenden Ergebnisse mehr. Entweder man erzeugt lange Suchterme mit vielen Ausschließungen und ebenso vielen nicht-exklusiven ODER-Verknüpfungen um verschiedene Schreibweisen für den gleichen Term abzudecken oder man wählt von vornherein die Daten-Quelle, an die man seine Fragen stellt, genau aus. Doch oft bleiben nur klassische Web-Suchmaschinen übrig, zumal wenn der Fragende kein Informationsspezialist mit Kenntnissen von Spezialdatenbanken ist, sondern, von dieser Warte aus gesehenen, ein Laie. Und nicht nur im Web selbst, auch in unternehmensinternen Intranets steht man vor diesem Problem. Tausende von indizierten Dokumente mögen ein Eckdatum sein, nach dem sich der Erfolg der Einführung eines Intranets bemessen lässt, aber eine Aussage über die Nützlichkeit ist damit nicht getroffen. Und die bleibt meist hinter den Erwartungen zurück, vor allem bei denen Mitarbeitern, die tatsächlich mit dem Intranet arbeiten müssen. Entscheidend ist für die Informationsauffindung in Inter- und Intranet eine einfach zu nutzende und leicht anpassbare Möglichkeit, neue interessante Inhalte zu entdecken. Mit Tags steht eine mögliche Lösung bereit.
-
Broughton, V.: Automatic metadata generation : Digital resource description without human intervention (2007)
0.01
0.01480829 = product of:
0.09378584 = sum of:
0.036411904 = weight(_text_:web in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036411904 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
0.036411904 = weight(_text_:web in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036411904 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
0.020962033 = product of:
0.041924067 = sum of:
0.041924067 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041924067 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
- Date
- 22. 9.2007 15:41:14
- Theme
- Semantic Web
-
Morrison, P.J.: Tagging and searching : search retrieval effectiveness of folksonomies on the World Wide Web (2008)
0.01
0.013153393 = product of:
0.08330482 = sum of:
0.036411904 = weight(_text_:web in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036411904 = score(doc=2109,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
0.036411904 = weight(_text_:web in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036411904 = score(doc=2109,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
0.010481017 = product of:
0.020962033 = sum of:
0.020962033 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020962033 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
- Abstract
- Many Web sites have begun allowing users to submit items to a collection and tag them with keywords. The folksonomies built from these tags are an interesting topic that has seen little empirical research. This study compared the search information retrieval (IR) performance of folksonomies from social bookmarking Web sites against search engines and subject directories. Thirty-four participants created 103 queries for various information needs. Results from each IR system were collected and participants judged relevance. Folksonomy search results overlapped with those from the other systems, and documents found by both search engines and folksonomies were significantly more likely to be judged relevant than those returned by any single IR system type. The search engines in the study had the highest precision and recall, but the folksonomies fared surprisingly well. Del.icio.us was statistically indistinguishable from the directories in many cases. Overall the directories were more precise than the folksonomies but they had similar recall scores. Better query handling may enhance folksonomy IR performance further. The folksonomies studied were promising, and may be able to improve Web search performance.
- Date
- 1. 8.2008 12:39:22
-
Noruzi, A.: Folksonomies : (un)controlled vocabulary? (2006)
0.01
0.011830841 = product of:
0.11239299 = sum of:
0.056196496 = weight(_text_:web in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056196496 = score(doc=404,freq=14.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.6677857 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
0.056196496 = weight(_text_:web in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056196496 = score(doc=404,freq=14.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.6677857 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
- Abstract
- Folksonomy, a free-form tagging, is a user-generated classification system of web contents that allows users to tag their favorite web resources with their chosen words or phrases selected from natural language. These tags (also called concepts, categories, facets or entities) can be used to classify web resources and to express users' preferences. Folksonomy-based systems allow users to classify web resources through tagging bookmarks, photos or other web resources and saving them to a public web site like Del.icio.us. Thus information about web resources and online articles can be shared in an easy way. The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the folksonomy tagging phenomenon (also called social tagging and social bookmarking) and explore some of the reasons why we need controlled vocabularies, discussing the problems associated with folksonomy.
-
Fiala, S.: Deutscher Bibliothekartag Leipzig 2007 : Sacherschließung - Informationsdienstleistung nach Mass (2007)
0.01
0.010566283 = product of:
0.10037969 = sum of:
0.049841963 = weight(_text_:semantische in 415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049841963 = score(doc=415,freq=8.0), product of:
0.13923967 = queryWeight, product of:
5.399778 = idf(docFreq=542, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.35795808 = fieldWeight in 415, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
5.399778 = idf(docFreq=542, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=415)
0.050537728 = weight(_text_:navigieren in 415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050537728 = score(doc=415,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19828427 = queryWeight, product of:
7.689554 = idf(docFreq=54, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.25487512 = fieldWeight in 415, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.689554 = idf(docFreq=54, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=415)
0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
- Content
- ""Sacherschließung - Informationsdienstleistung nach Maß": unter diesem Titel fand am 3. Leipziger Kongress für Information und Bibliothek ("Information und Ethik") eine sehr aufschlussreiche Vortragsreihe statt. Neue Projekte der Vernetzung unterschiedlichst erschlossener Bestände wurden vorgestellt. Auch die Frage, inwieweit man die Nutzerinnen und Nutzer in die Erschließung einbinden kann, wurde behandelt. Die Arbeit der Bibliothekare kann wertvolle Ausgangssituationen für alternative Methoden bieten. Das Zusammenwirken von intellektueller und maschineller Erschließung wird in Zukunft eine große Rolle spielen. Ein Ausweg, um die Erschließung der ständig wachsenden Informationsquellen zu ermöglichen, könnte eine arbeitsteilige Erschließung und eine Kooperation mit anderen Informationseinrichtungen darstellen. Im Mittelpunkt all dieser Überlegungen standen die Heterogenitätsprobleme, die sich durch unterschiedliche Erschließungsregeln, verschiedene Arbeitsinstrumente, verschiedene Sprachen und durch die unterschiedliche Bedeutung der Begriffe ergeben können. Der Nachmittag begann mit einem konkreten Beispiel: "Zum Stand der Heterogenitätsbehandlung in vascoda" (Philipp Mayr, Bonn und Anne-Kathrin Walter, Bonn). Das Wissenschaftsportal vascoda beinhaltet verschiedene Fachportale, und es kann entweder interdisziplinär oder fachspezifisch gesucht werden. Durch die verschiedenen Informationsangebote, die in einem Fachportal vorhanden sind und die in dem Wissenschaftsportal vascoda zusammengefasst sind, entsteht semantische Heterogenität. Oberstes Ziel ist somit die Heterogenitätsbehandlung. Die Erstellung von Crosskonkordanzen (zwischen Indexierungssprachen innerhalb eines Fachgebiets und zwischen Indexierungssprachen unterschiedlicher Fachgebiete) und dem sogenannten Heterogenitätsservice (Term-Umschlüsselungs-Dienst) wurden anhand dieses Wissenschaftsportals vorgestellt. "Crosskonkordanzen sind gerichtete, relevanzbewertete Relationen zwischen Termen zweier Thesauri, Klassifikationen oder auch anderer kontrollierter Vokabulare." Im Heterogenitätsservice soll die Suchanfrage so transformiert werden, dass sie alle relevanten Dokumente in den verschiedenen Datenbanken erreicht. Bei der Evaluierung der Crosskonkordanzen stellt sich die Frage der Zielgenauigkeit der Relationen, sowie die Frage nach der Relevanz der durch die Crosskonkordanz zusätzlich gefundenen Treffer. Drei Schritte der Evaluation werden durchgeführt: Zum einen mit natürlicher Sprache in der Freitextsuche, dann übersetzt in Deskriptoren in der Schlagwortsuche und zuletzt mit Deskriptoren in der Schlagwortsuche mit Einsatz der Crosskonkordanzen. Im Laufe des Sommers werden erste Ergebnisse der Evaluation der Crosskonkordanzen erwartet.
Einen anderen sehr interessanten Ansatz bot der nächste Vortrag mit dem Titel: "Navigieren zwischen Schlagwort und Notation - Crisscross als Verbindung zwischen SWD und DDC" (Helga Karg, Frankfurt am Main und Guido Bee, Frankfurt am Main). Das Projekt Crisscross versucht durch Verbindung von SWD, LCSH, Rameau und DDC ein benutzergerechtes, multilinguales und thesaurusbasiertes Recherchevokabular zu erstellen. Es wurde eine Konkordanz zwischen SWD, LCSH und Rameau (Projekt MACS) erstellt und in den SWD-Sachschlagwörtern die DDCNotationen vermerkt. Durch die Angabe der Determiniertheit in der SWD kann zwischen "wesentlicher Übereinstimmung von SWD-Term und DDCKlasse", "SWD-Begriff spezifischer als die DDC-Klasse" und SWD-Begriff sowohl "nicht auf einen bestimmten Kontext beschränkt" als auch "SWDBegriff quer zur DDC-Hierarchie" unterschieden werden (siehe auch: Anzeige in MelviIClass).
Der dritte Vortrag dieser Vortragsreihe mit dem Titel: "Anfragetransfers zur Integration von Internetquellen in digitalen Bibliotheken auf der Grundlage statistischer Termrelationen" (Robert Strötgen, Hildesheim) zeigte eine maschinelle Methode der Integration ausgewählter, inhaltlich aber nicht erschlossener Internetdokumentbestände in digitale Bibliotheken. Das Zusammentreffen inhaltlich gut erschlossener Fachdatenbanken mit Internetdokumenten steht im Mittelpunkt dieses Forschungsprojekts. "Sollen ausgewählte fachliche Internetdokumente zur Ausweitung einer Recherche in einer digitalen Bibliothek integriert werden, ist dies entweder durch eine Beschränkung auf hochwertige und aufwändig erstellte Clearinghouses oder durch eine "naive" Weiterleitung der Benutzeranfrage möglich." Weiter heißt es in der Projektbeschreibung: "Unter Anwendung von Methoden des maschinellen Lernens werden semantische Relationen zwischen Klassen verschiedener Ontologien erstellt, die Übergänge zwischen diesen Ontologien ermöglichen. Besondere Bedeutung für dieses Forschungsvorhaben hat der Transfer zwischen Ontologien und Freitexttermen." Ausgehend vom Projekt CARMEN werden in diesem Projekt automatisiert - durch statistisches maschinelles Lernen - semantische Relationen berechnet. So wird eine Benutzeranfrage, die mittels Thesaurus erfolgte, für eine Abfrage in Internetdokumentbeständen transformiert.
- Theme
- Semantische Interoperabilität
-
Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008)
0.01
0.010248641 = product of:
0.06490806 = sum of:
0.02627803 = weight(_text_:web in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02627803 = score(doc=2652,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = 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)
0.02627803 = weight(_text_:web in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02627803 = score(doc=2652,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = 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)
0.012351996 = product of:
0.024703993 = sum of:
0.024703993 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024703993 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = 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)
0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
- 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
-
Hayman, S.; Lothian, N.: Taxonomy directed folksonomies : integrating user tagging and controlled vocabularies for Australian education networks (2007)
0.01
0.010068637 = product of:
0.06376804 = sum of:
0.021022424 = weight(_text_:web in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021022424 = score(doc=705,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.24981049 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
0.021022424 = weight(_text_:web in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021022424 = score(doc=705,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.24981049 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
0.02172319 = weight(_text_:services in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02172319 = score(doc=705,freq=4.0), product of:
0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.22946067 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
- Abstract
- What is the role of controlled vocabulary in a Web 2.0 world? Can we have the best of both worlds: balancing folksonomies and controlled vocabularies to help communities of users find and share information and resources most relevant to them? education.au develops and manages Australian online services for education and training. Its goal is to bring people, learning and technology together. education.au projects are increasingly involved in exploring the use of Web 2.0 developments building on user ideas, knowledge and experience, and how these might be integrated with existing information management systems. This paper presents work being undertaken in this area, particularly in relation to controlled vocabularies, and discusses the challenges faced. Education Network Australia (edna) is a leading online resource collection and collaborative network for education, with an extensive repository of selected educational resources with metadata created by educators and information specialists. It uses controlled vocabularies for metadata creation and searching, where users receive suggested related terms from an education thesaurus, with their results. We recognise that no formal thesaurus can keep pace with user needs so are interested in exploiting the power of folksonomies. We describe a proof of concept project to develop community contributions to managing information and resources, using Taxonomy-Directed Folksonomy. An established taxonomy from the Australian education sector suggests terms for tagging and users can suggest terms. Importantly, the folksonomy will feed back into the taxonomy showing gaps in coverage and helping us to monitor new terms and usage to improve and develop our formal taxonomies. This model would initially sit alongside the current edna repositories, tools and services but will give us valuable user contributed resources as well as information about how users manage resources. Observing terms suggested, chosen and used in folksonomies is a rich source of information for developing our formal systems so that we can indeed get the best of both worlds.
- Object
- Web 2.0
-
Wesch, M.: Information R/evolution (2006)
0.01
0.00863817 = product of:
0.05470841 = sum of:
0.02124028 = weight(_text_:web in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02124028 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1267, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1267)
0.02124028 = weight(_text_:web in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02124028 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1267, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1267)
0.012227853 = product of:
0.024455706 = sum of:
0.024455706 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024455706 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1267, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1267)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
- Abstract
- This video explores the changes in the way we find, store, create, critique, and share information. This video was created as a conversation starter, and works especially well when brainstorming with people about the near future and the skills needed in order to harness, evaluate, and create information effectively. Ein sehr schöner Kurzfilm von Michael Wesch, dem wir auch den Beitrag zu Web 2.0 (The Machine is Us/ing Us) verdanken (vor einiger Zeit hier besprochen), thematisiert die Veränderung der Handhabung von Information (insbesondere die Strukturierung und Ordnung, aber auch die Generierung und Speicherung), die auf ihre digitale Gestalt zurückzuführen ist. Kernaussage: Da die Informationen keine physikalischen Beschränkungen mehr unterworfen sind, wird die Ordnung der Informationen vielfältiger, flexibler und für jedermann einfacher zugänglich.
- Date
- 5. 1.2008 19:22:48
-
Park, H.: ¬A conceptual framework to study folksonomic interaction (2011)
0.01
0.0078237355 = product of:
0.07432549 = sum of:
0.037162744 = weight(_text_:web in 4852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037162744 = score(doc=4852,freq=12.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 4852, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4852)
0.037162744 = weight(_text_:web in 4852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037162744 = score(doc=4852,freq=12.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 4852, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4852)
0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
- Abstract
- This paper proposes a conceptual framework to recast a folksonomy as a Web classification and to use this to explore the ways in which people work with it in assessing, sharing, and navigating Web resources. The author uses information scent and foraging theory as a context to discuss how folksonomy is constructed through interactions among users, a folksonomic system, and a given domain that consists of a group of users who share the same interest or goals. The discussion centers on two dimensions of folksonomies: (1) folksonomy as a Web classification which puts like information together in a Web context; and (2) folksonomy as information scent which helps users to find related resources and users, and obtain desired information. This paper aims to integrate these two dimensions with a conceptual framework that addresses the structure of a folksonomy shaped by users' interactions. A proposed framework consists of three components of users' interactions with a folksonomy: (a) tagging - cognitive categorization of Web accessible resources by an individual user; (b) navigation - exploration and discovery of Web accessible resources in the folksonomic system; and (c) knowledge sharing - representation and communication of knowledge within a domain. This understanding will help us motivate possible future directions of research in folksonomy. This initial framework will frame a number of research questions and help lay the groundwork for future empirical research which focuses on qualitative analysis of a folksonomy and users' tagging behaviors.
-
Peters, I.; Stock, W.G.: Power tags in information retrieval (2010)
0.01
0.00782274 = product of:
0.04954402 = sum of:
0.0151716275 = weight(_text_:web in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0151716275 = score(doc=865,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 865, 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=865)
0.0151716275 = weight(_text_:web in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0151716275 = score(doc=865,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 865, 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=865)
0.019200768 = weight(_text_:services in 865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019200768 = score(doc=865,freq=2.0), product of:
0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 865, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=865)
0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
- Abstract
- Purpose - Many Web 2.0 services (including Library 2.0 catalogs) make use of folksonomies. The purpose of this paper is to cut off all tags in the long tail of a document-specific tag distribution. The remaining tags at the beginning of a tag distribution are considered power tags and form a new, additional search option in information retrieval systems. Design/methodology/approach - In a theoretical approach the paper discusses document-specific tag distributions (power law and inverse-logistic shape), the development of such distributions (Yule-Simon process and shuffling theory) and introduces search tags (besides the well-known index tags) as a possibility for generating tag distributions. Findings - Search tags are compatible with broad and narrow folksonomies and with all knowledge organization systems (e.g. classification systems and thesauri), while index tags are only applicable in broad folksonomies. Based on these findings, the paper presents a sketch of an algorithm for mining and processing power tags in information retrieval systems. Research limitations/implications - This conceptual approach is in need of empirical evaluation in a concrete retrieval system. Practical implications - Power tags are a new search option for retrieval systems to limit the amount of hits. Originality/value - The paper introduces power tags as a means for enhancing the precision of search results in information retrieval systems that apply folksonomies, e.g. catalogs in Library 2.0environments.
-
Peters, I.: Folksonomies : nutzergenerierte Schlagwörter als Indexierungswerkzeug für die Massen (2011)
0.01
0.0077451034 = product of:
0.073578484 = sum of:
0.036789242 = weight(_text_:web in 4909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036789242 = score(doc=4909,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 4909, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4909)
0.036789242 = weight(_text_:web in 4909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036789242 = score(doc=4909,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 4909, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4909)
0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
- Abstract
- Die große Fülle an nutzergeneriertem Content im Web 2.0 bedarf einer Strukturierung, will man diese Inhalte sinnvoll nutzen können. Im Internet hat sich mit den Folksonomies eigenständig eine Methode zur inhaltlichen Erschließung von digitalen Ressourcen etabliert. Die Verschlagwortung durch freie, von den Nutzern erstellte Tags zeigt viel Potential, birgt aber auch einige Risiken. Der Beitrag soll grundlegend in die Funktionsweise von Folksonomies einführen und dabei auch Vor- und Nachteile dieser Methode der Wissensrepräsentation ansprechen. Außerdem soll anhand von Beispielen kurz gezeigt werden, wie Folksonomies sinnvoll von Bibliotheken eingesetzt werden können.
- Content
- Inhalt 1. Zur Notwendigkeit der Inhaltserschließung im Web 2.0 2. Funktion und Nutzen von Folksonomies 3. Folksonomies in Bibliotheken 4. Danksagung
- Object
- Web 2.0
-
Watters, C.; Nizam, N.: Knowledge organization on the Web : the emergent role of social classification (2012)
0.01
0.0077451034 = product of:
0.073578484 = sum of:
0.036789242 = weight(_text_:web in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036789242 = score(doc=828,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
0.036789242 = weight(_text_:web in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036789242 = score(doc=828,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
- Abstract
- There are close to a billion websites on the Internet with approximately 400 million users worldwide [www.internetworldstats.com]. People go to websites for a wide variety of different information tasks, from finding a restaurant to serious research. Many of the difficulties with searching the Web, as it is structured currently, can be attributed to increases to scale. The content of the Web is now so large that we only have a rough estimate of the number of sites and the range of information is extremely diverse, from blogs and photos to research articles and news videos.
-
Peters, I.: Folksonomies & Social Tagging (2023)
0.01
0.0077451034 = product of:
0.073578484 = sum of:
0.036789242 = weight(_text_:web in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036789242 = score(doc=796,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 796, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=796)
0.036789242 = weight(_text_:web in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036789242 = score(doc=796,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 796, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=796)
0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
- Abstract
- Die Erforschung und der Einsatz von Folksonomies und Social Tagging als nutzerzentrierte Formen der Inhaltserschließung und Wissensrepräsentation haben in den 10 Jahren ab ca. 2005 ihren Höhenpunkt erfahren. Motiviert wurde dies durch die Entwicklung und Verbreitung des Social Web und der wachsenden Nutzung von Social-Media-Plattformen (s. Kapitel E 8 Social Media und Social Web). Beides führte zu einem rasanten Anstieg der im oder über das World Wide Web auffindbaren Menge an potenzieller Information und generierte eine große Nachfrage nach skalierbaren Methoden der Inhaltserschließung.
-
Peterson, E.: Parallel systems : the coexistence of subject cataloging and folksonomy (2008)
0.01
0.0063238507 = product of:
0.06007658 = sum of:
0.03003829 = weight(_text_:web in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03003829 = score(doc=251,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
0.03003829 = weight(_text_:web in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03003829 = score(doc=251,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
- Abstract
- Catalogers have always had to balance adherence to cataloging rules and authority files with creating cataloging that is current and relevant to users. That dilemma has been complicated in new ways because of user demands in the world of Web 2.0. Standardized cataloging is crucial for communication between computer systems, but patrons now have an expectation of social interaction on the Internet, as evidenced by the popularity of folksonomy. After a description of traditional subject cataloging and folksonomy, this article discusses several institutions where subject cataloging is still used, but where patron interaction is also encouraged. User-generated tags can coexist with controlled vocabulary such as subject headings.
- Object
- Web 2.0
-
Peters, I.: Folksonomies : indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0 (2009)
0.01
0.0062589888 = product of:
0.059460394 = sum of:
0.029730197 = weight(_text_:web in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029730197 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.35328537 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
0.029730197 = weight(_text_:web in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029730197 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.35328537 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
- Abstract
- Kollaborative Informationsdienste im Web 2.0 werden von den Internetnutzern nicht nur dazu genutzt, digitale Informationsressourcen zu produzieren, sondern auch, um sie inhaltlich mit eigenen Schlagworten, sog. Tags, zu erschließen. Dabei müssen die Nutzer nicht wie bei Bibliothekskatalogen auf Regeln achten. Die Menge an nutzergenerierten Tags innerhalb eines Kollaborativen Informationsdienstes wird als Folksonomy bezeichnet. Die Folksonomies dienen den Nutzern zum Wiederauffinden eigener Ressourcen und für die Recherche nach fremden Ressourcen. Das Buch beschäftigt sich mit Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten, Folksonomies als Methode der Wissensrepräsentation und als Werkzeug des Information Retrievals.
- Footnote
- Zugl.: Düsseldorf, Univ., Diss., 2009 u.d.T.: Peters, Isabella: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval Rez. in: IWP - Information Wissenschaft & Praxis, 61(2010) Heft 8, S.469-470 (U. Spree): "... Nachdem sich die Rezensentin durch 418 Seiten Text hindurch gelesen hat, bleibt sie unentschieden, wie der auffällige Einsatz langer Zitate (im Durchschnitt drei Zitate, die länger als vier kleingedruckte Zeilen sind, pro Seite) zu bewerten ist, zumal die Zitate nicht selten rein illustrativen Charakter haben bzw. Isabella Peters noch einmal zitiert, was sie bereits in eigenen Worten ausgedrückt hat. Redundanz und Verlängerung der Lesezeit halten sich hier die Waage mit der Möglichkeit, dass sich die Leserin einen unmittelbaren Eindruck von Sprache und Duktus der zitierten Literatur verschaffen kann. Eindeutig unschön ist das Beenden eines Gedankens oder einer Argumentation durch ein Zitat (z. B. S. 170). Im deutschen Original entstehen auf diese Weise die für deutsche wissenschaftliche Qualifikationsarbeiten typischen denglischen Texte. Für alle, die sich für Wissensrepräsentation, Information Retrieval und kollaborative Informationsdienste interessieren, ist "Folksonomies : Indexing and Retrieval in Web 2.0" trotz der angeführten kleinen Mängel zur Lektüre und Anschaffung - wegen seines beinahe enzyklopädischen Charakters auch als Nachschlage- oder Referenzwerk geeignet - unbedingt zu empfehlen. Abschließend möchte ich mich in einem Punkt der Produktinfo von de Gruyter uneingeschränkt anschließen: ein "Grundlagenwerk für Folksonomies".
- Object
- Web 2.0
- RSWK
- World Wide Web 2.0
- Subject
- World Wide Web 2.0
-
Bar-Ilan, J.; Belous, Y.: Children as architects of Web directories : an exploratory study (2007)
0.00
0.004517036 = product of:
0.042911842 = sum of:
0.021455921 = weight(_text_:web in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021455921 = score(doc=289,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
0.021455921 = weight(_text_:web in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021455921 = score(doc=289,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
- Abstract
- Children are increasingly using the Web. Cognitive theory tells us that directory structures are especially suited for information retrieval by children; however, empirical results show that they prefer keyword searching. One of the reasons for these findings could be that the directory structures and terminology are created by grown-ups. Using a card-sorting method and an enveloping system, we simulated the structure of a directory. Our goal was to try to understand what browsable, hierarchical subject categories children create when suggested terms are supplied and they are free to add or delete terms. Twelve groups of four children each (fourth and fifth graders) participated in our exploratory study. The initial terminology presented to the children was based on names of categories used in popular directories, in the sections on Arts, Television, Music, Cinema, and Celebrities. The children were allowed to introduce additional cards and change the terms appearing on the 61 cards. Findings show that the different groups reached reasonable consensus; the majority of the category names used by existing directories were acceptable by them and only a small minority of the terms caused confusion. Our recommendation is to include children in the design process of directories, not only in designing the interface but also in designing the content structure as well.
-
Shirky, C.: Ontology is overrated : categories, links, and tags (2005)
0.00
0.004517036 = product of:
0.042911842 = sum of:
0.021455921 = weight(_text_:web in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021455921 = score(doc=1265,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
0.021455921 = weight(_text_:web in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021455921 = score(doc=1265,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
- Abstract
- Today I want to talk about categorization, and I want to convince you that a lot of what we think we know about categorization is wrong. In particular, I want to convince you that many of the ways we're attempting to apply categorization to the electronic world are actually a bad fit, because we've adopted habits of mind that are left over from earlier strategies. I also want to convince you that what we're seeing when we see the Web is actually a radical break with previous categorization strategies, rather than an extension of them. The second part of the talk is more speculative, because it is often the case that old systems get broken before people know what's going to take their place. (Anyone watching the music industry can see this at work today.) That's what I think is happening with categorization. What I think is coming instead are much more organic ways of organizing information than our current categorization schemes allow, based on two units -- the link, which can point to anything, and the tag, which is a way of attaching labels to links. The strategy of tagging -- free-form labeling, without regard to categorical constraints -- seems like a recipe for disaster, but as the Web has shown us, you can extract a surprising amount of value from big messy data sets.
-
Johansson, S.; Golub, K.: LibraryThing for libraries : how tag moderation and size limitations affect tag clouds (2019)
0.00
0.004517036 = product of:
0.042911842 = sum of:
0.021455921 = weight(_text_:web in 5398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021455921 = score(doc=5398,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 5398, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5398)
0.021455921 = weight(_text_:web in 5398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021455921 = score(doc=5398,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.025786186 = queryNorm
0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 5398, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5398)
0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
- Abstract
- The aim of this study is to analyse differences between tags on LibraryThing's web page and tag clouds in their "Library-Thing for Libraries" service, and assess if, and how, the Library-Thing tag moderation and limitations to the size of the tag cloud in the library catalogue affect the description of the information resource. An e-mail survey was conducted with personnel at LibraryThing, and the results were compared against tags for twenty different fiction books, collected from two different library catalogues with disparate tag cloud sizes, and Library-Thing's web page. The data were analysed using a modified version of Golder and Huberman's tag categories (2006). The results show that while LibraryThing claims to only remove the inherently personal tags, several other types of tags are found to have been discarded as well. Occasionally a certain type of tag is in-cluded in one book, and excluded in another. The comparison between the two tag cloud sizes suggests that the larger tag clouds provide a more pronounced picture regarding the contents of the book but at the cost of an increase in the number of tags with synonymous or redundant information.
