Search (78 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Heckner, M.: Tagging, rating, posting : studying forms of user contribution for web-based information management and information retrieval (2009) 0.03
    0.029007396 = product of:
      0.14503698 = sum of:
        0.053233504 = weight(_text_:web in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053233504 = score(doc=2931,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
        0.091803476 = weight(_text_:log in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.091803476 = score(doc=2931,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18335998 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.5006735 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
      0.2 = coord(2/10)
    
    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
  2. Farkas, M.G.: Social software in libraries : building collaboration, communication, and community online (2007) 0.03
    0.027746454 = product of:
      0.13873227 = sum of:
        0.028568096 = weight(_text_:web in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028568096 = score(doc=2364,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
        0.11016417 = weight(_text_:log in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11016417 = score(doc=2364,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18335998 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.60080814 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
      0.2 = coord(2/10)
    
    RSWK
    Bibliothek / Web log
    Subject
    Bibliothek / Web log
  3. Santini, M.: Zero, single, or multi? : genre of web pages through the users' perspective (2008) 0.01
    0.011950583 = product of:
      0.059752915 = sum of:
        0.053233504 = weight(_text_:web in 2059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053233504 = score(doc=2059,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
        0.00651941 = product of:
          0.019558229 = sum of:
            0.019558229 = weight(_text_:29 in 2059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019558229 = score(doc=2059,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028611459 = queryNorm
                0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2059, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2059)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2 = coord(2/10)
    
    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.
    Date
    30. 7.2008 10:29:54
  4. Peters, I.: Folksonomies und kollaborative Informationsdienste : eine Alternative zur Websuche? (2011) 0.01
    0.00970437 = product of:
      0.04852185 = sum of:
        0.038090795 = weight(_text_:web in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038090795 = score(doc=343,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
        0.010431055 = product of:
          0.031293165 = sum of:
            0.031293165 = weight(_text_:29 in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.031293165 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028611459 = queryNorm
                0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2 = coord(2/10)
    
    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.
    Pages
    S.29-53
    Source
    Handbuch Internet-Suchmaschinen, 2: Neue Entwicklungen in der Web-Suche. Hrsg.: D. Lewandowski
  5. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.01
    0.008025718 = product of:
      0.04012859 = sum of:
        0.033667825 = weight(_text_:web in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033667825 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
        0.006460763 = product of:
          0.019382289 = sum of:
            0.019382289 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019382289 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028611459 = 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)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2 = coord(2/10)
    
    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
  6. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.01
    0.0076588183 = product of:
      0.03829409 = sum of:
        0.029157192 = weight(_text_:web in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029157192 = score(doc=2652,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
        0.009136898 = product of:
          0.027410695 = sum of:
            0.027410695 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.027410695 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028611459 = 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)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2 = coord(2/10)
    
    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
  7. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.01
    0.007264202 = product of:
      0.03632101 = sum of:
        0.028568096 = weight(_text_:web in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028568096 = score(doc=3387,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
        0.0077529154 = product of:
          0.023258746 = sum of:
            0.023258746 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.023258746 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028611459 = 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)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2 = coord(2/10)
    
    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
  8. Marchitelli, A.; Piazzini, T.: OPAC, SOPAC e social networking : cataloghi di biblioteca 2.0? (2008) 0.01
    0.006538931 = product of:
      0.032694653 = sum of:
        0.023567477 = weight(_text_:web in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023567477 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 3862, 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=3862)
        0.009127174 = product of:
          0.027381519 = sum of:
            0.027381519 = weight(_text_:29 in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.027381519 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028611459 = queryNorm
                0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3862, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3862)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2 = coord(2/10)
    
    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.
    Date
    29. 1.1996 17:18:10
  9. Weiand, K.; Hartl, A.; Hausmann, S.; Furche, T.; Bry, F.: Keyword-based search over semantic data (2012) 0.01
    0.0062986733 = product of:
      0.06298673 = sum of:
        0.06298673 = weight(_text_:web in 432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06298673 = score(doc=432,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    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
  10. Corrado, E.; Moulaison, H.L.: Social tagging and communities of practice : two case studies (2008) 0.01
    0.005604797 = product of:
      0.028023984 = sum of:
        0.020200694 = weight(_text_:web in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020200694 = score(doc=2271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2271, 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=2271)
        0.007823291 = product of:
          0.023469873 = sum of:
            0.023469873 = weight(_text_:29 in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.023469873 = score(doc=2271,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028611459 = queryNorm
                0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2271, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2271)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2 = coord(2/10)
    
    Content
    In investigating the use of social tagging for knowledge organization and sharing, this paper reports on two case studies. Each study examines how two disparate communities of practices utilize social tagging to disseminate information to other community members in the online environment. Through the use of these tags, community members may retrieve and view relevant Web sites and online videos. The first study looks at tagging within the Code4Lib community of practice. The second study examines the use of tagging on video sharing sites used by a community of French teenagers. Uses of social tagging to share information within these communities are analyzed and discussed, and recommendations for future study are provided.
    Date
    27.12.2008 11:20:29
  11. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.01
    0.005590722 = product of:
      0.02795361 = sum of:
        0.020200694 = weight(_text_:web in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020200694 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
        0.0077529154 = product of:
          0.023258746 = sum of:
            0.023258746 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.023258746 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028611459 = 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)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2 = coord(2/10)
    
    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
  12. Blumauer, A.; Hochmeister, M.: Tag-Recommender gestützte Annotation von Web-Dokumenten (2009) 0.01
    0.0052698483 = product of:
      0.05269848 = sum of:
        0.05269848 = weight(_text_:web in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05269848 = score(doc=4866,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    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
  13. Hsu, M.-H.; Chen, H.-H.: Efficient and effective prediction of social tags to enhance Web search (2011) 0.00
    0.0047613494 = product of:
      0.047613494 = sum of:
        0.047613494 = weight(_text_:web in 4625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047613494 = score(doc=4625,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    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.
  14. Voß, J.: Vom Social Tagging zum Semantic Tagging (2008) 0.00
    0.0047134957 = product of:
      0.047134954 = sum of:
        0.047134954 = weight(_text_:web in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047134954 = score(doc=2884,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    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
  15. Hotho, A.; Jäschke, R.; Benz, D.; Grahl, M.; Krause, B.; Schmitz, C.; Stumme, G.: Social Bookmarking am Beispiel BibSonomy (2009) 0.00
    0.004665151 = product of:
      0.04665151 = sum of:
        0.04665151 = weight(_text_:web in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04665151 = score(doc=4873,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.49962097 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    Abstract
    BibSonomy ist ein kooperatives Verschlagwortungssystem (Social Bookmarking System), betrieben vom Fachgebiet Wissensverarbeitung der Universität Kassel. Es erlaubt das Speichern und Organisieren von Web-Lesezeichen und Metadaten für wissenschaftliche Publikationen. In diesem Beitrag beschreiben wir die von BibSonomy bereitgestellte Funktionalität, die dahinter stehende Architektur sowie das zugrunde liegende Datenmodell. Ferner erläutern wir Anwendungsbeispiele und gehen auf Methoden zur Analyse der in BibSonomy und ähnlichen Systemen enthaltenen Daten ein.
    Source
    Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini
  16. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.00
    0.004658935 = product of:
      0.023294676 = sum of:
        0.016833913 = weight(_text_:web in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016833913 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 515, 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=515)
        0.006460763 = product of:
          0.019382289 = sum of:
            0.019382289 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019382289 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028611459 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 515, 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=515)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.2 = coord(2/10)
    
    Abstract
    A new collaborative approach in information organization and sharing has recently arisen, known as collaborative tagging or social indexing. A key element of collaborative tagging is the concept of collective intelligence (CI), which is a shared intelligence among all participants. This research investigates the phenomenon of social tagging in the context of CI with the aim to serve as a stepping-stone towards the mining of truly valuable social tags for web resources. This study focuses on assessing and evaluating the degree of CI embedded in social tagging over time in terms of two-parameter values, number of participants, and top frequency ranking window. Five different metrics were adopted and utilized for assessing the similarity between ranking lists: overlapList, overlapRank, Footrule, Fagin's measure, and the Inverse Rank measure. The result of this study demonstrates that a substantial degree of CI is most likely to be achieved when somewhere between the first 200 and 400 people have participated in tagging, and that a target degree of CI can be projected by controlling the two factors along with the selection of a similarity metric. The study also tests some experimental conditions for detecting social tags with high CI degree. The results of this study can be applicable to the study of filtering social tags based on CI; filtered social tags may be utilized for the metadata creation of tagged resources and possibly for the retrieval of tagged resources.
    Date
    25.12.2012 15:22:37
  17. Web-2.0-Dienste als Ergänzung zu algorithmischen Suchmaschinen (2008) 0.00
    0.0045170127 = product of:
      0.04517013 = sum of:
        0.04517013 = weight(_text_:web in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04517013 = score(doc=4323,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    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
  18. Huang, C.; Fu, T.; Chen, H.: Text-based video content classification for online video-sharing sites (2010) 0.00
    0.0044538346 = product of:
      0.044538345 = sum of:
        0.044538345 = weight(_text_:web in 3452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044538345 = score(doc=3452,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.47698978 = fieldWeight in 3452, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3452)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    Abstract
    With the emergence of Web 2.0, sharing personal content, communicating ideas, and interacting with other online users in Web 2.0 communities have become daily routines for online users. User-generated data from Web 2.0 sites provide rich personal information (e.g., personal preferences and interests) and can be utilized to obtain insight about cyber communities and their social networks. Many studies have focused on leveraging user-generated information to analyze blogs and forums, but few studies have applied this approach to video-sharing Web sites. In this study, we propose a text-based framework for video content classification of online-video sharing Web sites. Different types of user-generated data (e.g., titles, descriptions, and comments) were used as proxies for online videos, and three types of text features (lexical, syntactic, and content-specific features) were extracted. Three feature-based classification techniques (C4.5, Naïve Bayes, and Support Vector Machine) were used to classify videos. To evaluate the proposed framework, user-generated data from candidate videos, which were identified by searching user-given keywords on YouTube, were first collected. Then, a subset of the collected data was randomly selected and manually tagged by users as our experiment data. The experimental results showed that the proposed approach was able to classify online videos based on users' interests with accuracy rates up to 87.2%, and all three types of text features contributed to discriminating videos. Support Vector Machine outperformed C4.5 and Naïve Bayes techniques in our experiments. In addition, our case study further demonstrated that accurate video-classification results are very useful for identifying implicit cyber communities on video-sharing Web sites.
    Object
    Web 2.0
  19. Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008) 0.00
    0.0041536554 = product of:
      0.041536555 = sum of:
        0.041536555 = product of:
          0.06230483 = sum of:
            0.031293165 = weight(_text_:29 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.031293165 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028611459 = queryNorm
                0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
            0.031011663 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.031011663 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.028611459 = 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)
          0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    Date
    21. 6.2009 9:55:29
    Pages
    S.15-22
  20. Watters, C.; Nizam, N.: Knowledge organization on the Web : the emergent role of social classification (2012) 0.00
    0.004082007 = product of:
      0.04082007 = sum of:
        0.04082007 = weight(_text_:web in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04082007 = score(doc=828,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    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.

Languages

  • e 55
  • d 22
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 64
  • el 9
  • m 9
  • s 3
  • b 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Classifications