Search (83 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Good tags - bad tags : Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation (2008) 0.03 
    0.026189448 = product of:
  0.0995199 = sum of:
    0.013139015 = weight(_text_:web in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013139015 = score(doc=3054,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.15613155 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
    0.013139015 = weight(_text_:web in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013139015 = score(doc=3054,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.15613155 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
    0.020767484 = weight(_text_:semantische in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020767484 = score(doc=3054,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13923967 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.399778 = idf(docFreq=542, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.1491492 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.399778 = idf(docFreq=542, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
    0.030793909 = weight(_text_:suche in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030793909 = score(doc=3054,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12883182 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2390241 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
    0.021680482 = product of:
      0.043360963 = sum of:
        0.043360963 = weight(_text_:aufsatzsammlung in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043360963 = score(doc=3054,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16918544 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = queryNorm
            0.25629252 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2631579 = coord(5/19)
    Abstract
    Teile und sammle könnte der moderne Leitspruch für das Phänomen Social Tagging heißen. Die freie und kollaborative Verschlagwortung digitaler Ressourcen im Internet gehört zu den Anwendungen aus dem Kontext von Web 2.0, die sich zunehmender Beliebtheit erfreuen. Der 2003 gegründete Social Bookmarking Dienst Del.icio.us und die 2004 entstandene Bildersammlung Flickr waren erste Anwendungen, die Social Tagging anboten und noch immer einen Großteil der Nutzer/innen an sich binden. Beim Blick in die Literatur wird schnell deutlich, dass Social Tagging polarisiert: Von Befürwortern wird es als eine Form der innovativen Wissensorganisation gefeiert, während Skeptiker die Dienste des Web 2.0 inklusive Social Tagging als globale kulturelle Bedrohung verdammen. Launischer Hype oder Quantensprung was ist dran am Social Tagging? Mit der Zielsetzung, mehr über die Erwartungen, Anwendungsbereiche und Nutzungsweisen zu erfahren, wurde im Frühjahr 2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen ein Workshop der Gesellschaft für Medien in der Wissenschaft (GMW) durchgeführt. Die vorliegende Publikation fasst die Ergebnisse der interdisziplinären Veranstaltung zusammen.
    Content
    - Theoretische Ansätze und empirische Untersuchungen Stefanie Panke & Birgit Gaiser: "With my head up in the clouds" - Social Tagging aus Nutzersicht Christoph Held& Ulrike Cress: Social Tagging aus kognitionspsychologischer Sicht Michael Derntl, Thorsten Hampel, Renate Motschnig & Tomas Pitner: Social Tagging und Inclusive Universal Access - Einsatz von Tagging in Hochschulen und Bibliotheken Christian Hänger: Good tags or bad tags? Tagging im Kontext der bibliothekarischen Sacherschließung Mandy Schiefner: Social Tagging in der universitären Lehre Michael Blank, Thomas Bopp, Thorsten Hampel & Jonas Schulte: Social Tagging = Soziale Suche? Andreas Harrer & Steffen Lohmann: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse Harald Sack & Jörg Waitelonis: Zeitbezogene kollaborative Annotation zur Verbesserung der inhaltsbasierten Videosuche - Kommerzielle Anwendungen von Tagging Karl Tschetschonig, Roland Ladengruber, Thorsten Hampel & Jonas Schulte: Kollaborative Tagging-Systeme im Electronic Commerce Tilman Küchler, Jan M. Pawlowski & Volker Zimmermann: Social Tagging and Open Content: A Concept for the Future of E-Learning and Knowledge Management? Stephan Schillenvein: Der .Business Case' für die Nutzung von Social Tagging in Intranets und internen Informationssystemen
    - Tagging im Semantic Web Benjamin Birkenhake: Semantic Weblog. Erfahrungen vom Bloggen mit Tags und Ontologien Simone Braun, Andreas Schmidt, Andreas Walter & Valentin Zacharias: Von Tags zu semantischen Beziehungen: kollaborative Ontologiereifung Jakob Voß: Vom Social Tagging zum Semantic Tagging Georg Güntner, Rolf Sint & Rupert Westenthaler: Ein Ansatz zur Unterstützung traditioneller Klassifikation durch Social Tagging Viktoria Pammer, Tobias Ley & Stefanie Lindstaedt: tagr: Unterstützung in kollaborativen Tagging-Umgebungen durch Semantische und Assoziative Netzwerke Matthias Quasthoff Harald Sack & Christoph Meinet: Nutzerfreundliche Internet-Sicherheit durch tag-basierte Zugriffskontrolle
    Footnote
    Der Band zeigt eindrucksvoll die Fülle der Anwendungsgebiete für Tagging-Systeme und die Vielfalt der Forschungsfragen, die sich daraus ergeben. Dabei bleiben eine Reihe von Desideraten bestehen, etwa zum tatsächlichen Sprachgebrauch in Tagging-Systemen, dem Zusammenhang zwischen Tagverwendung und Systemdesign oder der tatsächlichen Effektivität der tagbasierten Suche. Für die Bewertung z. B. der Retrievaleffektivität der Suche bei Flickr oder YouTube sind aber sicher auch neue Qualitätsmodelle der Inhaltsbewertung erforderlich, weil die Bewertungskriterien der Fachinformation dort nur bedingt greifen."
    RSWK
    Wissensorganisation / Social Tagging / Aufsatzsammlung
    Subject
    Wissensorganisation / Social Tagging / Aufsatzsammlung
  2. Web-2.0-Dienste als Ergänzung zu algorithmischen Suchmaschinen (2008) 0.02 
    0.022383628 = product of:
  0.14176299 = sum of:
    0.04070975 = weight(_text_:web in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04070975 = score(doc=4323,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.04070975 = weight(_text_:web in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04070975 = score(doc=4323,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.06034349 = weight(_text_:suche in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06034349 = score(doc=4323,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12883182 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.46838963 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.996156 = idf(docFreq=812, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    Abstract
    Mit sozialen Suchdiensten - wie z. B. Yahoo Clever, Lycos iQ oder Mister Wong - ist eine Ergänzung und teilweise sogar eine Konkurrenz zu den bisherigen Ansätzen in der Web-Suche entstanden. Während Google und Co. automatisch generierte Trefferlisten bieten, binden soziale Suchdienste die Anwender zu Generierung der Suchergebnisse in den Suchprozess ein. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird in diesem Buch der Frage nachgegangen, inwieweit soziale Suchdienste mit traditionellen Suchmaschinen konkurrieren oder diese qualitativ ergänzen können. Der vorliegende Band beleuchtet die hier aufgeworfene Fragestellung aus verschiedenen Perspektiven, um auf die Bedeutung von sozialen Suchdiensten zu schließen.
    Issue
    Ergebnisse des Fachprojektes "Einbindung von Frage-Antwort-Diensten in die Web-Suche" am Department Information der Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften Hamburg (WS 2007/2008).
    RSWK
    World Wide Web 2.0 / Suchmaschine
    Subject
    World Wide Web 2.0 / Suchmaschine
  3. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.02 
    0.020331511 = product of:
  0.09657468 = sum of:
    0.030343255 = weight(_text_:web in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030343255 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.030343255 = weight(_text_:web in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030343255 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.027153987 = weight(_text_:services in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027153987 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.28682584 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.008734181 = product of:
      0.017468361 = sum of:
        0.017468361 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017468361 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21052632 = coord(4/19)
    Abstract
    More and more users index everything on their own in the web 2.0. There are services for links, videos, pictures, books, encyclopaedic articles and scientific articles. All these services are library independent. But must that really be? Can't libraries help with their experience and tools to make user indexing better? On the experience of a project from German language Wikipedia together with the German person authority files (Personen Namen Datei - PND) located at German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) I would like to show what is possible. How users can and will use the authority files, if we let them. We will take a look how the project worked and what we can learn for future projects. Conclusions - Authority files can have a role in the web 2.0 - there must be an open interface/ service for retrieval - everything that is indexed on the net with authority files can be easy integrated in a federated search - O'Reilly: You have to found ways that your data get more important that more it will be used
    Content
    Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".
    Object
    Web 2.0
  4. 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
  5. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.02 
    0.017898137 = product of:
  0.08501615 = sum of:
    0.025747105 = weight(_text_:web in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025747105 = score(doc=3387,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.025747105 = weight(_text_:web in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025747105 = score(doc=3387,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.023040922 = weight(_text_:services in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023040922 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
    0.010481017 = product of:
      0.020962033 = sum of:
        0.020962033 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020962033 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = 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)
  0.21052632 = coord(4/19)
    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
  6. 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.
  7. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.01 
    0.0147229135 = product of:
  0.06993384 = sum of:
    0.018205952 = weight(_text_:web in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018205952 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.018205952 = weight(_text_:web in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018205952 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.023040922 = weight(_text_:services in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023040922 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
    0.010481017 = product of:
      0.020962033 = sum of:
        0.020962033 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020962033 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09029883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025786186 = 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)
  0.21052632 = coord(4/19)
    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
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 53(2009) no.3, S.174-184
  8. Farkas, M.G.: Social software in libraries : building collaboration, communication, and community online (2007) 0.01 
    0.013275631 = product of:
  0.084079 = sum of:
    0.025747105 = weight(_text_:web in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025747105 = score(doc=2364,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.025747105 = weight(_text_:web in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025747105 = score(doc=2364,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.032584786 = weight(_text_:services in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032584786 = score(doc=2364,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.344191 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    LCSH
    Electronic reference services (Libraries)
    RSWK
    Bibliothek / Web log
    Subject
    Bibliothek / Web log
    Electronic reference services (Libraries)
  9. Regulski, K.: Aufwand und Nutzen beim Einsatz von Social-Bookmarking-Services als Nachweisinstrument für wissenschaftliche Forschungsartikel am Beispiel von BibSonomy (2007) 0.01 
    0.012516384 = product of:
  0.07927044 = sum of:
    0.024274603 = weight(_text_:web in 4595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024274603 = score(doc=4595,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.024274603 = weight(_text_:web in 4595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024274603 = score(doc=4595,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.03072123 = weight(_text_:services in 4595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03072123 = score(doc=4595,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.3245064 = fieldWeight in 4595, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4595)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    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.
  10. Weiand, K.; Hartl, A.; Hausmann, S.; Furche, T.; Bry, F.: Keyword-based search over semantic data (2012) 0.01 
    0.011950953 = product of:
  0.113534056 = sum of:
    0.056767028 = weight(_text_:web in 432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056767028 = score(doc=432,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.6745654 = fieldWeight in 432, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=432)
    0.056767028 = weight(_text_:web in 432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056767028 = score(doc=432,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.6745654 = fieldWeight in 432, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=432)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    For a long while, the creation of Web content required at least basic knowledge of Web technologies, meaning that for many Web users, the Web was de facto a read-only medium. This changed with the arrival of the "social Web," when Web applications started to allow users to publish Web content without technological expertise. Here, content creation is often an inclusive, iterative, and interactive process. Examples of social Web applications include blogs, social networking sites, as well as many specialized applications, for example, for saving and sharing bookmarks and publishing photos. Social semantic Web applications are social Web applications in which knowledge is expressed not only in the form of text and multimedia but also through informal to formal annotations that describe, reflect, and enhance the content. These annotations often take the shape of RDF graphs backed by ontologies, but less formal annotations such as free-form tags or tags from a controlled vocabulary may also be available. Wikis are one example of social Web applications for collecting and sharing knowledge. They allow users to easily create and edit documents, so-called wiki pages, using a Web browser. The pages in a wiki are often heavily interlinked, which makes it easy to find related information and browse the content.
    Source
    Semantic search over the Web. Eds.: R. De Virgilio, et al
    Theme
    Semantic Web
  11. Frohner, H.: Social Tagging : Grundlagen, Anwendungen, Auswirkungen auf Wissensorganisation und soziale Strukturen der User (2010) 0.01 
    0.011349193 = product of:
  0.071878225 = sum of:
    0.0151716275 = weight(_text_:web in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0151716275 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.0151716275 = weight(_text_:web in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0151716275 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.041534968 = weight(_text_:semantische in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041534968 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13923967 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.399778 = idf(docFreq=542, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2982984 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.399778 = idf(docFreq=542, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    Abstract
    Social Tagging ist eine Methode zur semantischen Datenorganisation. Im Unterschied zu traditionellen Ansätzen wird die Kategorisierung nicht von Experten vorgenommen, sondern von einer Vielzahl von Benutzern gemeinschaftlich entwickelt. Bezüglich der Daten existieren grundsätzlich keinerlei Einschränkungen. Dabei kann es sich sowohl um multimediale Inhalte als auch um wissenschaftliche Literatur handeln. Jeder Benutzer, unabhängig von Expertise oder Intention, ist aufgefordert, mithilfe von frei gewählten Tags die Kategorisierung der verwendeten Ressourcen zu unterstützen. Insgesamt entsteht dadurch eine Sammlung verschiedenster subjektiver Einschätzungen, die zusammen eine umfassende semantische Organisation bestimmter Inhalte darstellen. Ziel dieses Buches ist es, zunächst die Grundlagen und Anwendungen von Social Tagging zu erörtern und dann speziell die Effekte im Hinblick auf die Wissensorganisation und die sozialen Beziehungen der Benutzer zu analysieren. Eines der zentralen Ergebnisse dieser Arbeit ist die Erkenntnis, dass die gemeinschaftlich erzeugten Metadaten eine unerwartet hohe Qualität bzw. Bedeutsamkeit aufweisen, obwohl Mehrdeutigkeiten und verschiedene Schreibweisen diese negativ beeinflussen könnten. Social Tagging ist besonders effektiv für die Organisation von sehr großen oder auch heterogenen Daten-beständen, die mit herkömmlichen, experten-basierten Kategorisierungsverfahren nicht mehr verarbeitet werden können oder durch automatische Verfahren qualitativ schlechter indexiert werden. Durch Social Tagging wird nicht nur die Wissensorganisation gefördert, sondern darüber hinaus auch die Zusammenarbeit und der Aufbau von Communities, weshalb Social Tagging auch effizient in der Lehre eingesetzt werden kann.
    Series
    Web 2.0
  12. Social tagging in a linked data environment. Edited by Diane Rasmussen Pennington and Louise F. Spiteri. London, UK: Facet Publishing, 2018. 240 pp. £74.95 (paperback). (ISBN 9781783303380) (2019) 0.01 
    0.011349193 = product of:
  0.071878225 = sum of:
    0.0151716275 = weight(_text_:web in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0151716275 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 101, 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=101)
    0.0151716275 = weight(_text_:web in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0151716275 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 101, 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=101)
    0.041534968 = weight(_text_:semantische in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041534968 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13923967 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.399778 = idf(docFreq=542, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2982984 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.399778 = idf(docFreq=542, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    Abstract
    Social tagging, hashtags, and geotags are used across a variety of platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, WordPress, Instagram) in different countries and cultures. This book, representing researchers and practitioners across different information professions, explores how social tags can link content across a variety of environments. Most studies of social tagging have tended to focus on applications like library catalogs, blogs, and social bookmarking sites. This book, in setting out a theoretical background and the use of a series of case studies, explores the role of hashtags as a form of linked data?without the complex implementation of RDF and other Semantic Web technologies.
    Theme
    Semantische Interoperabilität
  13. 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
  14. Santini, M.: Zero, single, or multi? : genre of web pages through the users' perspective (2008) 0.01 
    0.010100399 = product of:
  0.09595379 = sum of:
    0.047976896 = weight(_text_:web in 2059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047976896 = score(doc=2059,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 2059, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2059)
    0.047976896 = weight(_text_:web in 2059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047976896 = score(doc=2059,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 2059, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2059)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    The goal of the study presented in this article is to investigate to what extent the classification of a web page by a single genre matches the users' perspective. The extent of agreement on a single genre label for a web page can help understand whether there is a need for a different classification scheme that overrides the single-genre labelling. My hypothesis is that a single genre label does not account for the users' perspective. In order to test this hypothesis, I submitted a restricted number of web pages (25 web pages) to a large number of web users (135 subjects) asking them to assign only a single genre label to each of the web pages. Users could choose from a list of 21 genre labels, or select one of the two 'escape' options, i.e. 'Add a label' and 'I don't know'. The rationale was to observe the level of agreement on a single genre label per web page, and draw some conclusions about the appropriateness of limiting the assignment to only a single label when doing genre classification of web pages. Results show that users largely disagree on the label to be assigned to a web page.
  15. Heckner, M.: Tagging, rating, posting : studying forms of user contribution for web-based information management and information retrieval (2009) 0.01 
    0.010100399 = product of:
  0.09595379 = sum of:
    0.047976896 = weight(_text_:web in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047976896 = score(doc=2931,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
    0.047976896 = weight(_text_:web in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047976896 = score(doc=2931,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = 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)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    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
  16. Blumauer, A.; Hochmeister, M.: Tag-Recommender gestützte Annotation von Web-Dokumenten (2009) 0.01 
    0.009998886 = product of:
  0.09498941 = sum of:
    0.047494706 = weight(_text_:web in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047494706 = score(doc=4866,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.5643819 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
    0.047494706 = weight(_text_:web in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047494706 = score(doc=4866,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.5643819 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    In diesem Kapitel wird die zentrale Bedeutung der Annotation von Webdokumenten bzw. von Ressourcen in einem Semantischen Web diskutiert. Es wird auf aktuelle Methoden und Techniken in diesem Gebiet eingegangen, insbesondere wird das Phänomen "Social Tagging" als zentrales Element eines "Social Semantic Webs" beleuchtet. Weiters wird der Frage nachgegangen, welchen Mehrwert "Tag Recommender" beim Annotationsvorgang bieten, sowohl aus Sicht des End-Users aber auch im Sinne eines kollaborativen Ontologieerstellungsprozesses. Schließlich wird ein Funktionsprinzip für einen semi-automatischen Tag-Recommender vorgestellt unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Anwendbarkeit in einem Corporate Semantic Web.
    Source
    Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini
  17. Hänger, C.: Knowledge management in the digital age : the possibilities of user generated content (2009) 0.01 
    0.009807254 = product of:
  0.06211261 = sum of:
    0.021455921 = weight(_text_:web in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021455921 = score(doc=2813,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2813, 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=2813)
    0.021455921 = weight(_text_:web in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021455921 = score(doc=2813,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2813, 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=2813)
    0.019200768 = weight(_text_:services in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019200768 = score(doc=2813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 2813, 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=2813)
  0.15789473 = coord(3/19)
    Abstract
    Today, in times of Web 2.0., graduates and undergraduates interact in virtual communities like studiVZ (Studentenverzeichnis) and generate content by reviewing or tagging documents. This phenomenon offers good prospects for academic libraries. They can use the customers' tags for indexing the growing amount of electronic resources and thereby optimize the search for these documents. Important examples are the journals, databases and e-books included in the "Nationallizenzen" financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The documents in this collection are not manually indexed by librarians and have no annotation according to the German standard classification systems. Connecting search systems by means of Web-2.0.-services is an important task for libraries. For this purpose users are encouraged to tag printed and electronic resources in search systems like the libraries' online catalogs and to establish connections between entries in other systems, e.g. Bibsonomy, and the items found in the online catalog. As a consequence annotations chosen by both, users and librarians, will coexist: The items in the tagging systems and the online catalog are linked, library users may find other publications of interest, and contacts between library users with similar scientific interests may be established. Librarians have to face the fact that user generated tags do not necessarily have the same quality as their own annotations and will therefore have to seek for instruments for comparing user generated tags with library generated keywords.
  18. Hsu, M.-H.; Chen, H.-H.: Efficient and effective prediction of social tags to enhance Web search (2011) 0.01 
    0.009034072 = product of:
  0.085823685 = sum of:
    0.042911842 = weight(_text_:web in 4625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042911842 = score(doc=4625,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 4625, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4625)
    0.042911842 = weight(_text_:web in 4625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042911842 = score(doc=4625,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 4625, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4625)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    As the web has grown into an integral part of daily life, social annotation has become a popular manner for web users to manage resources. This method of management has many potential applications, but it is limited in applicability by the cold-start problem, especially for new resources on the web. In this article, we study automatic tag prediction for web pages comprehensively and utilize the predicted tags to improve search performance. First, we explore the stabilizing phenomenon of tag usage in a social bookmarking system. Then, we propose a two-stage tag prediction approach, which is efficient and is effective in making use of early annotations from users. In the first stage, content-based ranking, candidate tags are selected and ranked to generate an initial tag list. In the second stage, random-walk re-ranking, we adopt a random-walk model that utilizes tag co-occurrence information to re-rank the initial list. The experimental results show that our algorithm effectively proposes appropriate tags for target web pages. In addition, we present a framework to incorporate tag prediction in a general web search. The experimental results of the web search validate the hypothesis that the proposed framework significantly enhances the typical retrieval model.
  19. Tonkin, E.; Baptista, A.A.; Hooland, S. van; Resmini, A.; Mendéz, E.; Neville, L.: Kinds of Tags : a collaborative research study on tag usage and structure (2007) 0.01 
    0.00895053 = product of:
  0.085030034 = sum of:
    0.026881078 = weight(_text_:services in 531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026881078 = score(doc=531,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.094670646 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 531, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=531)
    0.058148954 = weight(_text_:semantische in 531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058148954 = score(doc=531,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13923967 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.399778 = idf(docFreq=542, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.41761774 = fieldWeight in 531, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.399778 = idf(docFreq=542, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=531)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Content
    Präsentation während der Veranstaltung "Networked Knowledge Organization Systems and Services: The 6th European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems (NKOS) Workshop, Workshop at the 11th ECDL Conference, Budapest, Hungary, September 21st 2007".
    Theme
    Semantische Interoperabilität
  20. Voß, J.: Vom Social Tagging zum Semantic Tagging (2008) 0.01 
    0.008943276 = product of:
  0.08496112 = sum of:
    0.04248056 = weight(_text_:web in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04248056 = score(doc=2884,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
    0.04248056 = weight(_text_:web in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04248056 = score(doc=2884,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08415349 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025786186 = queryNorm
        0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
  0.10526316 = coord(2/19)
    Abstract
    Social Tagging als freie Verschlagwortung durch Nutzer im Web wird immer häufiger mit der Idee des Semantic Web in Zusammenhang gebracht. Wie beide Konzepte in der Praxis konkret zusammenkommen sollen, bleibt jedoch meist unklar. Dieser Artikel soll hier Aufklärung leisten, indem die Kombination von Social Tagging und Semantic Web in Form von Semantic Tagging mit dem Simple Knowledge Organisation System dargestellt und auf die konkreten Möglichkeiten, Vorteile und offenen Fragen der Semantischen Indexierung eingegangen wird.
    Theme
    Semantic Web

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 55
  • d 27
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 66
  • el 12
  • m 9
  • s 3
  • b 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications