Search (86 results, page 1 of 5)

0.023068309 = product of:
  0.092273235 = sum of:
    0.092273235 = sum of:
      0.04274179 = weight(_text_:web in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04274179 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03707166 = queryNorm
          0.35328537 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
      0.04953145 = weight(_text_:seiten in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04953145 = score(doc=4203,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20383513 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.4984083 = idf(docFreq=491, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03707166 = queryNorm
          0.2429976 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.4984083 = idf(docFreq=491, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Kollaborative Informationsdienste im Web 2.0 werden von den Internetnutzern nicht nur dazu genutzt, digitale Informationsressourcen zu produzieren, sondern auch, um sie inhaltlich mit eigenen Schlagworten, sog. Tags, zu erschließen. Dabei müssen die Nutzer nicht wie bei Bibliothekskatalogen auf Regeln achten. Die Menge an nutzergenerierten Tags innerhalb eines Kollaborativen Informationsdienstes wird als Folksonomy bezeichnet. Die Folksonomies dienen den Nutzern zum Wiederauffinden eigener Ressourcen und für die Recherche nach fremden Ressourcen. Das Buch beschäftigt sich mit Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten, Folksonomies als Methode der Wissensrepräsentation und als Werkzeug des Information Retrievals.

Footnote

Zugl.: Düsseldorf, Univ., Diss., 2009 u.d.T.: Peters, Isabella: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval Rez. in: IWP - Information Wissenschaft & Praxis, 61(2010) Heft 8, S.469-470 (U. Spree): "... Nachdem sich die Rezensentin durch 418 Seiten Text hindurch gelesen hat, bleibt sie unentschieden, wie der auffällige Einsatz langer Zitate (im Durchschnitt drei Zitate, die länger als vier kleingedruckte Zeilen sind, pro Seite) zu bewerten ist, zumal die Zitate nicht selten rein illustrativen Charakter haben bzw. Isabella Peters noch einmal zitiert, was sie bereits in eigenen Worten ausgedrückt hat. Redundanz und Verlängerung der Lesezeit halten sich hier die Waage mit der Möglichkeit, dass sich die Leserin einen unmittelbaren Eindruck von Sprache und Duktus der zitierten Literatur verschaffen kann. Eindeutig unschön ist das Beenden eines Gedankens oder einer Argumentation durch ein Zitat (z. B. S. 170). Im deutschen Original entstehen auf diese Weise die für deutsche wissenschaftliche Qualifikationsarbeiten typischen denglischen Texte. Für alle, die sich für Wissensrepräsentation, Information Retrieval und kollaborative Informationsdienste interessieren, ist "Folksonomies : Indexing and Retrieval in Web 2.0" trotz der angeführten kleinen Mängel zur Lektüre und Anschaffung - wegen seines beinahe enzyklopädischen Charakters auch als Nachschlage- oder Referenzwerk geeignet - unbedingt zu empfehlen. Abschließend möchte ich mich in einem Punkt der Produktinfo von de Gruyter uneingeschränkt anschließen: ein "Grundlagenwerk für Folksonomies".

Object

Web 2.0

RSWK

World Wide Web 2.0

Subject

World Wide Web 2.0

0.021184567 = product of:
  0.042369135 = sum of:
    0.021811578 = product of:
      0.043623157 = sum of:
        0.043623157 = weight(_text_:web in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043623157 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.020557558 = product of:
      0.051393896 = sum of:
        0.026280407 = weight(_text_:28 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026280407 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13280044 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.19789396 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
        0.025113491 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025113491 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12981863 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  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".

Date

14. 1.2008 14:38:28

Object

Web 2.0

0.019777711 = product of:
  0.039555423 = sum of:
    0.034487132 = product of:
      0.068974264 = sum of:
        0.068974264 = weight(_text_:web in 2059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068974264 = score(doc=2059,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.005068291 = product of:
      0.025341455 = sum of:
        0.025341455 = weight(_text_:29 in 2059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025341455 = score(doc=2059,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13040651 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.01931637 = product of:
  0.03863274 = sum of:
    0.03022301 = product of:
      0.06044602 = sum of:
        0.06044602 = weight(_text_:web in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06044602 = score(doc=4873,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.00840973 = product of:
      0.042048648 = sum of:
        0.042048648 = weight(_text_:28 in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042048648 = score(doc=4873,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13280044 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.31663033 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

Date

3. 1.2012 19:00:28

Source

Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini

0.016393125 = product of:
  0.03278625 = sum of:
    0.024676984 = product of:
      0.04935397 = sum of:
        0.04935397 = weight(_text_:web in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04935397 = score(doc=343,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.008109266 = product of:
      0.040546328 = sum of:
        0.040546328 = weight(_text_:29 in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040546328 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13040651 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.012996274 = product of:
  0.025992548 = sum of:
    0.01888938 = product of:
      0.03777876 = sum of:
        0.03777876 = weight(_text_:web in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03777876 = score(doc=2652,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0071031675 = product of:
      0.035515837 = sum of:
        0.035515837 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035515837 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12981863 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.012585338 = product of:
  0.025170676 = sum of:
    0.008724631 = product of:
      0.017449262 = sum of:
        0.017449262 = weight(_text_:web in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017449262 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.016446047 = product of:
      0.041115116 = sum of:
        0.021024324 = weight(_text_:28 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021024324 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13280044 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.15831517 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
        0.020090792 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020090792 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12981863 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2657, 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=2657)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Social tagging empowers users to categorize content in a personally meaningful way while harnessing their potential to contribute to a collaborative construction of knowledge (Vander Wal, 2007). In addition, social tagging systems offer innovative filtering mechanisms that facilitate resource discovery and browsing (Mathes, 2004). As a result, social tags may support online communication, informal or intended learning as well as the development of online communities. The purpose of this mixed methods study is to examine how undergraduate students participate in social tagging activities in order to learn about their motivations, behaviours and practices. A better understanding of their knowledge, habits and interactions with such systems will help practitioners and developers identify important factors when designing enhancements. In the first phase of the study, students enrolled at a Canadian university completed 103 questionnaires. Quantitative results focusing on general familiarity with social tagging, frequently used Web 2.0 sites, and the purpose for engaging in social tagging activities were compiled. Eight questionnaire respondents participated in follow-up semi-structured interviews that further explored tagging practices by situating questionnaire responses within concrete experiences using popular websites such as YouTube, Facebook, Del.icio.us, and Flickr. Preliminary results of this study echo findings found in the growing literature concerning social tagging from the fields of computer science (Sen et al., 2006) and information science (Golder & Huberman, 2006; Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006). Generally, two classes of social taggers emerge: those who focus on tagging for individual purposes, and those who view tagging as a way to share or communicate meaning to others. Heavy del.icio.us users, for example, were often focused on simply organizing their own content, and seemed to be conscientiously maintaining their own personally relevant categorizations while, in many cases, placing little importance on the tags of others. Conversely, users tagging items primarily to share content preferred to use specific terms to optimize retrieval and discovery by others. Our findings should inform practitioners of how interaction design can be tailored for different tagging systems applications, and how these findings are positioned within the current debate surrounding social tagging among the resource discovery community. We also hope to direct future research in the field to place a greater importance on exploring the benefits of tagging as a socially-driven endeavour rather than uniquely as a means of managing information.

Date

20. 2.2009 20:28:36

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

0.012267487 = product of:
  0.024534974 = sum of:
    0.018507738 = product of:
      0.037015475 = sum of:
        0.037015475 = weight(_text_:web in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037015475 = score(doc=3387,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0060272375 = product of:
      0.030136187 = sum of:
        0.030136187 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030136187 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12981863 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.01131331 = product of:
  0.02262662 = sum of:
    0.015268105 = product of:
      0.03053621 = sum of:
        0.03053621 = weight(_text_:web in 4561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03053621 = score(doc=4561,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4561, 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=4561)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.007358514 = product of:
      0.03679257 = sum of:
        0.03679257 = weight(_text_:28 in 4561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03679257 = score(doc=4561,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13280044 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.27705154 = fieldWeight in 4561, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4561)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper examines collections of citations that individual users contribute to social tagging systems such as Delicious and LibraryThing. I characterize these personal collections, furnished with various forms of metadata and arranged for Web display, as a means of communication, where a particular sensibility molds guiding principles for resource selection, description, and categorization. Using several analytic frameworks from museum studies, I present three brief case studies that interrogate both the substance and the means of expression achieved in such collections, which I term "expressive bibliographies." In considering these case studies, I explore how an explicit rhetorical perspective might inform purposeful design of expressive bibliography.

Date

6. 1.1997 18:30:28

0.0111818565 = product of:
  0.022363713 = sum of:
    0.015268105 = product of:
      0.03053621 = sum of:
        0.03053621 = weight(_text_:web in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03053621 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0070956075 = product of:
      0.035478037 = sum of:
        0.035478037 = weight(_text_:29 in 3862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035478037 = score(doc=3862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13040651 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

Date

29. 1.1996 17:18:10

0.010339598 = product of:
  0.020679196 = sum of:
    0.015423114 = product of:
      0.030846229 = sum of:
        0.030846229 = weight(_text_:web in 319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030846229 = score(doc=319,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 319, 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=319)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0052560815 = product of:
      0.026280407 = sum of:
        0.026280407 = weight(_text_:28 in 319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026280407 = score(doc=319,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13280044 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.19789396 = fieldWeight in 319, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=319)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This study employs the FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) conceptual model to provide in-depth investigation on the characteristics of social tags by analyzing the bibliographic attributes of tags that are not limited to subject properties. FRBR describes four different levels of entities (i.e., Work, Expression, Manifestation, and Item), which provide a distinguishing understanding of each entity in the bibliographic universe. In this research, since the scope of data analysis focuses on tags assigned to web documents, consideration on Manifestation and Item has been excluded. Accordingly, only the attributes of Work and Expression entity were investigated in order to map the attributes of tags to attributes defined in those entities. The content analysis on tag attributes was conducted on a total of 113 web documents regarding 11 attribute categories defined by FRBR. The findings identified essential bibliographic attributes of tags and tagging behaviors by subject. The findings showed that concerning specific subject areas, taggers exhibited different tagging behaviors representing distinctive features and tendencies. These results have led to the conclusion that there should be an increased awareness of diverse user needs by subject in terms of the practical implications of metadata generation.

Date

6. 1.1997 18:30:28

0.010201431 = product of:
  0.040805724 = sum of:
    0.040805724 = product of:
      0.08161145 = sum of:
        0.08161145 = weight(_text_:web in 432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08161145 = score(doc=432,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.009697122 = product of:
  0.019394243 = sum of:
    0.013086946 = product of:
      0.026173891 = sum of:
        0.026173891 = weight(_text_:web in 2883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026173891 = score(doc=2883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2883, 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=2883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0063072974 = product of:
      0.031536486 = sum of:
        0.031536486 = weight(_text_:28 in 2883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031536486 = score(doc=2883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13280044 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.23747274 = fieldWeight in 2883, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2883)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

28 Prozent der amerikanischen Internetnutzer/innen haben es bereits getan: Das freie Verschlagworten von Inhalten aller Art per Social Tagging gehört zu den Anwendungen aus dem Kontext von Web 2.0, die sich zunehmender Beliebtheit erfreuen (Rainie, 2007). Während sich die bisherige Forschung überwiegend inhaltsanalytisch mit dem Phänomen befasst, kommen im vorliegenden Beitrag so genannte "Power User" zu Wort. Um zu einer fundierteren Interpretation der in den Inhaltsanalysen gewonnenen Erkenntnisse beizutragen, wurden Interviews mit Personen durchgeführt, die mehrere Tagging Systeme parallel einsetzen, sich auch mit den technischen Grundlagen auskennen und als "Early Adopter" bereits seit geraumer Zeit aktiv sind. Entsprechend leitet der Beitrag von einer Synopse der aktuellen Literatur in die beschriebene Studie über und schließt mit einem Ausblick auf zukünftige Forschungsvorhaben im Kontext von Social Tagging.

0.009584447 = product of:
  0.019168895 = sum of:
    0.013086946 = product of:
      0.026173891 = sum of:
        0.026173891 = weight(_text_:web in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026173891 = score(doc=2271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0060819495 = product of:
      0.030409746 = sum of:
        0.030409746 = weight(_text_:29 in 2271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030409746 = score(doc=2271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13040651 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.009557092 = product of:
  0.019114183 = sum of:
    0.013086946 = product of:
      0.026173891 = sum of:
        0.026173891 = weight(_text_:web in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026173891 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0060272375 = product of:
      0.030136187 = sum of:
        0.030136187 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030136187 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12981863 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  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

0.008621783 = product of:
  0.034487132 = sum of:
    0.034487132 = product of:
      0.068974264 = sum of:
        0.068974264 = weight(_text_:web in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068974264 = score(doc=2931,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.00853513 = product of:
  0.03414052 = sum of:
    0.03414052 = product of:
      0.06828104 = sum of:
        0.06828104 = weight(_text_:web in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06828104 = score(doc=4866,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.008271678 = product of:
  0.016543357 = sum of:
    0.012338492 = product of:
      0.024676984 = sum of:
        0.024676984 = weight(_text_:web in 508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024676984 = score(doc=508,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 508, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=508)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.004204865 = product of:
      0.021024324 = sum of:
        0.021024324 = weight(_text_:28 in 508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021024324 = score(doc=508,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13280044 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.15831517 = fieldWeight in 508, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=508)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Wie schaffen es hunderttausende Menschen in ihrer Freizeit eine Enzyklopädie zu erstellen, die in der Qualität der seit Jahrhunderten renommierten Brockhaus-Enzyklopädie in nichts nachsteht und in der Quantität weit übertrifft? Warum veröffentlichen Millionen von Internetnutzern ihre Urlaubsbilder und Videos aus dem privaten Leben im Netz? Wieso funktioniert die Informationsversorgung durch Touristen und Privatleute oftmals besser als die Berichterstattung der großen Agenturen? Und warum versprechen sich Unternehmen wie Google oder die Holtzbrinck Gruppe so viel von derartigen Plattformen, dass deren Gründer über Nacht zu Millionären werden? Wie schaffte es eine australische Brauerei, vom Business Plan bis zur Produktionsplanung alle Prozesse von einer Internet-Community entwickeln zu lassen? Wie passt die lose Kollaboration im Netz zu mühsam ausgearbeiteten und über viele Jahrzehnte untersuchten Organisationsmodellen in Unternehmen? Was können Unternehmen von Wikipedia & Co lernen? Wikimanagement gibt nicht nur einen ausführlichen Überblick über die aktuelle Welt des Web 2.0, sondern stellt auch die Funktionsweise der Wikipedia und anderer Social Software-Systeme den wichtigsten organisationstheoretischen Ansätzen gegenüber. In Anwendungsfeldern wie Innovation, Projektmanagement, Marketing und vielen anderen wird deutlich gemacht, wie Unternehmen von Social Software-Technologie und -Philosophie lernen und profitieren können.

Date

28. 5.2008 9:53:41

0.008080935 = product of:
  0.01616187 = sum of:
    0.010905789 = product of:
      0.021811578 = sum of:
        0.021811578 = weight(_text_:web in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021811578 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0052560815 = product of:
      0.026280407 = sum of:
        0.026280407 = weight(_text_:28 in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026280407 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13280044 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.19789396 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

30. 8.2011 19:28:45

Series

Web 2.0

0.008080935 = product of:
  0.01616187 = sum of:
    0.010905789 = product of:
      0.021811578 = sum of:
        0.021811578 = weight(_text_:web in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021811578 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12098375 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 296, 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=296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0052560815 = product of:
      0.026280407 = sum of:
        0.026280407 = weight(_text_:28 in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026280407 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13280044 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03707166 = queryNorm
            0.19789396 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5822632 = idf(docFreq=3342, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This study aims to consider the value of user-assigned image tags by comparing the facets that are represented in image tags with those that are present in image queries to see if there is a similarity in the way that users describe and search for images. Design/methodology/approach - A sample dataset was created by downloading a selection of images and associated tags from Flickr, the online photo-sharing web site. The tags were categorised using image facets from Shatford's matrix, which has been widely used in previous research into image indexing and retrieval. The facets present in the image tags were then compared with the results of previous research into image queries. Findings - The results reveal that there are broad similarities between the facets present in image tags and queries, with people and objects being the most common facet, followed by location. However, the results also show that there are differences in the level of specificity between tags and queries, with image tags containing more generic terms and image queries consisting of more specific terms. The study concludes that users do describe and search for images using similar image facets, but that measures to close the gap between specific queries and generic tags would improve the value of user tags in indexing image collections. Originality/value - Research into tagging has tended to focus on textual resources with less research into non-textual documents. In particular, little research has been undertaken into how user tags compare to the terms used in search queries, particularly in the context of digital images.

Date

24. 6.2012 18:28:02