Search (38 results, page 1 of 2)

0.07528286 = product of:
  0.15056571 = sum of:
    0.062582366 = weight(_text_:open in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062582366 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.2985229 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
    0.087983355 = sum of:
      0.05013916 = weight(_text_:access in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05013916 = score(doc=3601,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.31775886 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
      0.037844196 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037844196 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = 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(2/4)

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

0.033960193 = product of:
  0.06792039 = sum of:
    0.05215197 = weight(_text_:open in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05215197 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.015768414 = product of:
      0.03153683 = sum of:
        0.03153683 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03153683 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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".

0.031291183 = product of:
  0.12516473 = sum of:
    0.12516473 = weight(_text_:open in 2892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12516473 = score(doc=2892,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.5970458 = fieldWeight in 2892, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2892)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Open Content is a promising concept for e-learning and knowledge management. It can improve sharing and re-using educational resources and create new business opportunities. However, in contrast to open source software, these opportunities have not yet been adopted by a wide community. This article discusses barriers and opportunities. The Content Explosion Model shows how content can be re-used and adapted to increase sharing and distributing Open Content. Social tagging is discussed, on the basis of an implementation example (SLIDESTAR), as a means of fostering content exchange on a content community platform.

0.020860787 = product of:
  0.08344315 = sum of:
    0.08344315 = weight(_text_:open in 2305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08344315 = score(doc=2305,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.39803052 = fieldWeight in 2305, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2305)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Open Rating Systeme werden zur Be­wertung unterschiedlichster Objekte eingesetzt. Benutzer können Rezensionen über Objekte verfassen, andere Benutzer können die Qualität dieser Rezensionen bewerten. Basierend auf diesen Bewertungen der Rezensionen wird ein Vertrauensnetzwerk (Web of Trust) aufgebaut. Zwei Benutzer werden durch eine gerichtete Kante verbunden, wenn ein Benutzer dem System mitteilt, dass er einem anderen Benutzer vertraut, Inhalte korrekt zu bewerten. Basierend auf diesem persönlichen Vertrauensnetzwerk werden Objekte und auch die Rezensionen für ein bestimmtes Objekt individuell für jeden Benutzer angeordnet.

0.018438507 = product of:
  0.07375403 = sum of:
    0.07375403 = weight(_text_:open in 3828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07375403 = score(doc=3828,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.3518126 = fieldWeight in 3828, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3828)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to understand users' motivations and intentions in the use of institutional collections on social tagging sites. Previous social tagging studies have collected social tagging data and analyzed how tagging functions as a tool to organize and retrieve information. Many studies focused on the patterns of tagging rather than the users' perspectives. To provide a more comprehensive picture of users' social tagging activities in institutional collections, and how this compares to social tagging in a more personal context, we collected data from social tagging users by surveying 7,563 participants in the Library of Congress's Flickr Collection. We asked users to describe their motivations for activities within the LC Flickr Collection in their own words using open-ended questions. As a result, we identified 11 motivations using a bottom-up, open-coding approach: affective reactions, opinion on photo, interest in subject, contribution to description, knowledge sharing, improving findability, social network, appreciation, personal use, and personal relationship. Our study revealed that affective or emotional reactions play a critical role in the use of social tagging of institutional collections by comparing our findings to existing frameworks for tagging motivations. We also examined the relationships between participants' occupations and our 11 motivations.

0.01825319 = product of:
  0.07301276 = sum of:
    0.07301276 = weight(_text_:open in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07301276 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.3482767 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this article are compared traditional OPAC systems, enriched OPAC, social OPAC and social cataloguing systems.the aim is to underline new theoretical trends and to offer a taxonomic outline of such tools, according to the interaction level granted to users and to the chance to manage user's generated contents in the point of view of the application of web 2.0 tendecies to libraries, in the library 2.0. At the end, a brief review of softwares, both open source and not, that seem promising for this future application.

0.01673109 = product of:
  0.03346218 = sum of:
    0.026075985 = weight(_text_:open in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026075985 = score(doc=3054,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.12438454 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
    0.007386196 = product of:
      0.014772392 = sum of:
        0.014772392 = weight(_text_:access in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014772392 = score(doc=3054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.093620606 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.014663892 = product of:
  0.058655567 = sum of:
    0.058655567 = sum of:
      0.033426106 = weight(_text_:access in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033426106 = score(doc=2666,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.21183924 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.025229463 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025229463 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046553567 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.

Source

Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas

0.013037993 = product of:
  0.05215197 = sum of:
    0.05215197 = weight(_text_:open in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05215197 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Connotea is a free online reference management and social bookmarking service for scientists created by Nature Publishing Group. While somewhat experimental in nature, Connotea already has a large and growing number of users, and is a real, fully functioning service. The label 'experimental' is not meant to imply that the service is any way ephemeral or esoteric, rather that the concept of social bookmarking itself and the application of that concept to reference management are both recent developments. Connotea is under active development, and we are still in the process of discovering how people will use it. In addition to Connotea being a free and public service, the core code is freely available under an open source license. Connotea was conceived from the outset as an online, social tool. Seeing the possibilities that del.icio.us was opening up for its users in the area of general web linking, we realised that scholarly reference management was a similar problem space. Connotea was designed and developed late in 2004, and soft-launched at the end of December 2004. Usage has grown over the past several months, to the point where there is now enough data in the system for interesting second-order effects to emerge. This paper will start by giving an overview of Connotea, and will outline the key concepts and describe its main features. We will then take the reader on a brief guided tour, show some of the aforementioned second-order effects, and end with a discussion of Connotea's likely future direction.

0.009126595 = product of:
  0.03650638 = sum of:
    0.03650638 = weight(_text_:open in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03650638 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.17413835 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Because, to paraphrase a pop music lyric from a certain rock and roll band of yesterday, "the Web is old, the Web is new, the Web is all, the Web is you", it seems like we might have to face up to some of these stark realities. With the introduction of new social software applications such as blogs, wikis, newsfeeds, social networks, and bookmarking tools (the subject of this paper), the claim that Shelley Powers makes in a Burningbird blog entry seems apposite: "This is the user's web now, which means it's my web and I can make the rules." Reinvention is revolution - it brings us always back to beginnings. We are here going to remind you of hyperlinks in all their glory, sell you on the idea of bookmarking hyperlinks, point you at other folks who are doing the same, and tell you why this is a good thing. Just as long as those hyperlinks (or let's call them plain old links) are managed, tagged, commented upon, and published onto the Web, they represent a user's own personal library placed on public record, which - when aggregated with other personal libraries - allows for rich, social networking opportunities. Why spill any ink (digital or not) in rewriting what someone else has already written about instead of just pointing at the original story and adding the merest of titles, descriptions and tags for future reference? More importantly, why not make these personal 'link playlists' available to oneself and to others from whatever browser or computer one happens to be using at the time? This paper reviews some current initiatives, as of early 2005, in providing public link management applications on the Web - utilities that are often referred to under the general moniker of 'social bookmarking tools'. There are a couple of things going on here: 1) server-side software aimed specifically at managing links with, crucially, a strong, social networking flavour, and 2) an unabashedly open and unstructured approach to tagging, or user classification, of those links.

0.007386196 = product of:
  0.029544784 = sum of:
    0.029544784 = product of:
      0.059089568 = sum of:
        0.059089568 = weight(_text_:access in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059089568 = score(doc=1806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.37448242 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Subject access: preparing for the future. Conference on August 20 - 21, 2009 in Florence, the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section sponsored an IFLA satellite conference entitled "Looking at the Past and Preparing for the Future". Eds.: P. Landry et al

0.007386196 = product of:
  0.029544784 = sum of:
    0.029544784 = product of:
      0.059089568 = sum of:
        0.059089568 = weight(_text_:access in 1807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059089568 = score(doc=1807,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.37448242 = fieldWeight in 1807, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1807)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Subject access: preparing for the future. Conference on August 20 - 21, 2009 in Florence, the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section sponsored an IFLA satellite conference entitled "Looking at the Past and Preparing for the Future". Eds.: P. Landry et al

0.006307366 = product of:
  0.025229463 = sum of:
    0.025229463 = product of:
      0.050458927 = sum of:
        0.050458927 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050458927 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Pages

S.15-22

0.006267395 = product of:
  0.02506958 = sum of:
    0.02506958 = product of:
      0.05013916 = sum of:
        0.05013916 = weight(_text_:access in 2864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05013916 = score(doc=2864,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.31775886 = fieldWeight in 2864, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2864)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Der vorliegende Artikel beleuchtet und bewertet Social Tagging als aktuelles Phänomen des Web 2.0 im Kontext bekannter Techniken der semantischen Datenorganisation. Tagging wird in einen Raum verwandter Ordnungs- und Strukturierungsansätze eingeordnet, um die fundamentalen Grundlagen des Social Tagging zu identifizieren und zuzuweisen. Dabei wird Tagging anhand des Inclusive Universal Access Paradigmas bewertet, das technische als auch menschlich-soziale Kriterien für die inklusive und barrierefreie Bereitstellung und Nutzung von Diensten definiert. Anhand dieser Bewertung werden fundamentale Prinzipien des "Inclusive Social Tagging" hergeleitet, die der Charakterisierung und Bewertung gängiger Tagging-Funktionalitäten in verbreiteten Web-2.0-Diensten dienen. Aus der Bewertung werden insbesondere Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten von Social Tagging und unterstützenden Diensten erkennbar.

0.006267395 = product of:
  0.02506958 = sum of:
    0.02506958 = product of:
      0.05013916 = sum of:
        0.05013916 = weight(_text_:access in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05013916 = score(doc=309,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.31775886 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper describes a survey on how system vendors and libraries handled tagging in OPACs and discovery layers. Tags are user added subject metadata, also called folksonomies. This survey also investigated user behavior when they face the possibility to tag. The findings indicate that legacy/classic systems have no tagging capability. About 47% of the discovery tools provide tagging function. About 49% of the libraries that have a system with tagging capability have turned the tagging function on in their OPACs and discovery tools. Only 40% of the libraries that turned tagging on actually utilized user added subject metadata as access point to collections. Academic library users are less active in tagging than public library users.

0.0055749766 = product of:
  0.022299906 = sum of:
    0.022299906 = product of:
      0.044599812 = sum of:
        0.044599812 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044599812 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.005518945 = product of:
  0.02207578 = sum of:
    0.02207578 = product of:
      0.04415156 = sum of:
        0.04415156 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04415156 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

21. 6.2009 12:22:44

0.0051703374 = product of:
  0.02068135 = sum of:
    0.02068135 = product of:
      0.0413627 = sum of:
        0.0413627 = weight(_text_:access in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0413627 = score(doc=1968,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Digital Commons platform for institutional repositories provides a three-tiered taxonomy of academic disciplines for each item submitted to the repository. Since faculty and departmental administrators across campuses are encouraged to submit materials to the institutional repository themselves, they must also assign disciplines or subject categories for their own work. The expandable drop-down menu of about 1,000 categories is easy to use, and facilitates the growth of the institutional repository and access to the materials through the Internet.

0.0047305245 = product of:
  0.018922098 = sum of:
    0.018922098 = product of:
      0.037844196 = sum of:
        0.037844196 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037844196 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.2010 12:35:22

0.0047305245 = product of:
  0.018922098 = sum of:
    0.018922098 = product of:
      0.037844196 = sum of:
        0.037844196 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037844196 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3602, 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=3602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22