Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Folksonomies"
  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Peters, I.: Folksonomies : indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0 (2009) 0.03
    0.031798005 = product of:
      0.11129302 = sum of:
        0.036359414 = weight(_text_:wide in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036359414 = score(doc=4203,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.2769224 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
        0.03416578 = weight(_text_:web in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03416578 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = 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)
        0.011415146 = weight(_text_:information in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011415146 = score(doc=4203,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
        0.029352674 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029352674 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.32745665 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    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
    Information Retrieval
    World Wide Web 2.0
    Series
    Knowledge and information : studies in information science
    Subject
    Information Retrieval
    World Wide Web 2.0
  2. Watters, C.; Nizam, N.: Knowledge organization on the Web : the emergent role of social classification (2012) 0.02
    0.020841157 = product of:
      0.09725873 = sum of:
        0.044992477 = weight(_text_:wide in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044992477 = score(doc=828,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.342674 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
        0.042278 = weight(_text_:web in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042278 = score(doc=828,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = 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)
        0.009988253 = weight(_text_:information in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009988253 = score(doc=828,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    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.
  3. Peters, I.: Folksonomies & Social Tagging (2023) 0.02
    0.020214265 = product of:
      0.09433324 = sum of:
        0.044992477 = weight(_text_:wide in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044992477 = score(doc=796,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.342674 = fieldWeight in 796, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=796)
        0.042278 = weight(_text_:web in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042278 = score(doc=796,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 796, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=796)
        0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0070627616 = score(doc=796,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 796, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=796)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Die Erforschung und der Einsatz von Folksonomies und Social Tagging als nutzerzentrierte Formen der Inhaltserschließung und Wissensrepräsentation haben in den 10 Jahren ab ca. 2005 ihren Höhenpunkt erfahren. Motiviert wurde dies durch die Entwicklung und Verbreitung des Social Web und der wachsenden Nutzung von Social-Media-Plattformen (s. Kapitel E 8 Social Media und Social Web). Beides führte zu einem rasanten Anstieg der im oder über das World Wide Web auffindbaren Menge an potenzieller Information und generierte eine große Nachfrage nach skalierbaren Methoden der Inhaltserschließung.
  4. Peters, I.: Folksonomies und kollaborative Informationsdienste : eine Alternative zur Websuche? (2011) 0.02
    0.015319143 = product of:
      0.071489334 = sum of:
        0.039451245 = weight(_text_:web in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039451245 = score(doc=343,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = 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)
        0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008071727 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
        0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023966359 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Folksonomies ermöglichen den Nutzern in Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten den Zugang zu verschiedenartigen Informationsressourcen. In welchen Fällen beide Bestandteile des Web 2.0 am besten für das Information Retrieval geeignet sind und wo sie die Websuche ggf. ersetzen können, wird in diesem Beitrag diskutiert. Dazu erfolgt eine detaillierte Betrachtung der Reichweite von Social-Bookmarking-Systemen und Sharing-Systemen sowie der Retrievaleffektivität von Folksonomies innerhalb von Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten.
    Source
    Handbuch Internet-Suchmaschinen, 2: Neue Entwicklungen in der Web-Suche. Hrsg.: D. Lewandowski
  5. Carlin, S.A.: Schlagwortvergabe durch Nutzende (Tagging) als Hilfsmittel zur Suche im Web : Ansatz, Modelle, Realisierungen (2006) 0.01
    0.010160525 = product of:
      0.071123675 = sum of:
        0.032137483 = weight(_text_:wide in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032137483 = score(doc=2476,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
        0.038986187 = weight(_text_:web in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038986187 = score(doc=2476,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    Nach dem zu Beginn der Ära des World Wide Web von Hand gepflegte Linklisten und -Verzeichnisse und an Freunde und Kollegen per E-Mail verschickte Links genügten, um die Informationen zu finden, nach denen man suchte, waren schon bald Volltextsuchmaschinen und halbautomatisch betriebene Kataloge notwendig, um den mehr und mehr anschwellenden Informationsfluten des Web Herr zu werden. Heute bereits sind diese Dämme gebrochen und viele Millionen Websites halten Billionen an Einzelseiten mit Informationen vor, von Datenbanken und anderweitig versteckten Informationen ganz zu schweigen. Mit Volltextsuchmaschinen erreicht man bei dieser Masse keine befriedigenden Ergebnisse mehr. Entweder man erzeugt lange Suchterme mit vielen Ausschließungen und ebenso vielen nicht-exklusiven ODER-Verknüpfungen um verschiedene Schreibweisen für den gleichen Term abzudecken oder man wählt von vornherein die Daten-Quelle, an die man seine Fragen stellt, genau aus. Doch oft bleiben nur klassische Web-Suchmaschinen übrig, zumal wenn der Fragende kein Informationsspezialist mit Kenntnissen von Spezialdatenbanken ist, sondern, von dieser Warte aus gesehenen, ein Laie. Und nicht nur im Web selbst, auch in unternehmensinternen Intranets steht man vor diesem Problem. Tausende von indizierten Dokumente mögen ein Eckdatum sein, nach dem sich der Erfolg der Einführung eines Intranets bemessen lässt, aber eine Aussage über die Nützlichkeit ist damit nicht getroffen. Und die bleibt meist hinter den Erwartungen zurück, vor allem bei denen Mitarbeitern, die tatsächlich mit dem Intranet arbeiten müssen. Entscheidend ist für die Informationsauffindung in Inter- und Intranet eine einfach zu nutzende und leicht anpassbare Möglichkeit, neue interessante Inhalte zu entdecken. Mit Tags steht eine mögliche Lösung bereit.
  6. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.01
    0.009579993 = product of:
      0.04470663 = sum of:
        0.03019857 = weight(_text_:web in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03019857 = score(doc=2652,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = 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)
        0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0050448296 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
        0.009463232 = product of:
          0.028389696 = sum of:
            0.028389696 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.028389696 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.029633347 = 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)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    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. Peters, I.; Schumann, L.; Terliesner, J.: Folksonomy-basiertes Information Retrieval unter der Lupe (2012) 0.01
    0.0066157626 = product of:
      0.046310335 = sum of:
        0.009988253 = weight(_text_:information in 406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009988253 = score(doc=406,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 406, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=406)
        0.036322083 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036322083 = score(doc=406,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 406, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=406)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    Social Tagging ist eine weitverbreitete Methode, um nutzergenerierte Inhalte in Webdiensten zu indexieren. Dieser Artikel fasst die aktuelle Forschung zu Folksonomies und Effektivität von Tags in Retrievalsystemen zusammen. Es wurde ein TREC-ähnlicher Retrievaltest mit Tags und Ressourcen aus dem Social Bookmarking-Dienst delicious durchgeführt, welcher in Recall- und Precisionwerten für ausschließlich Tag-basierte Suchen resultierte. Außerdem wurden Tags in verschiedenen Stufen bereinigt und auf ihre Retrieval-Effektivität getestet. Testergebnisse zeigen, dass Retrieval in Folksonomies am besten mit kurzen Anfragen funktioniert. Hierbei sind die Recallwerte hoch, die Precisionwerte jedoch eher niedrig. Die Suchfunktion "power tags only" liefert verbesserte Precisionwerte.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.4, S.273-280
  8. Shirky, C.: Ontology is overrated : categories, links, and tags (2005) 0.00
    0.004243123 = product of:
      0.029701859 = sum of:
        0.02465703 = weight(_text_:web in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02465703 = score(doc=1265,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
        0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0050448296 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    Today I want to talk about categorization, and I want to convince you that a lot of what we think we know about categorization is wrong. In particular, I want to convince you that many of the ways we're attempting to apply categorization to the electronic world are actually a bad fit, because we've adopted habits of mind that are left over from earlier strategies. I also want to convince you that what we're seeing when we see the Web is actually a radical break with previous categorization strategies, rather than an extension of them. The second part of the talk is more speculative, because it is often the case that old systems get broken before people know what's going to take their place. (Anyone watching the music industry can see this at work today.) That's what I think is happening with categorization. What I think is coming instead are much more organic ways of organizing information than our current categorization schemes allow, based on two units -- the link, which can point to anything, and the tag, which is a way of attaching labels to links. The strategy of tagging -- free-form labeling, without regard to categorical constraints -- seems like a recipe for disaster, but as the Web has shown us, you can extract a surprising amount of value from big messy data sets.
  9. Lee, Y.Y.; Yang, S.Q.: Folksonomies as subject access : a survey of tagging in library online catalogs and discovery layers (2012) 0.00
    0.0014944416 = product of:
      0.020922182 = sum of:
        0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020922182 = score(doc=309,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 309, 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=309)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Source
    Beyond libraries - subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web. IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn
  10. Chopin, K.: Finding communities : alternative viewpoints through weblogs and tagging (2008) 0.00
    0.001245368 = product of:
      0.017435152 = sum of:
        0.017435152 = weight(_text_:web in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017435152 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2341, 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=2341)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper aims to discuss and test the claim that user-based tagging allows for access to a wider variety of viewpoints than is found using other forms of online searching. Design/methodology/approach - A general overview of the nature of weblogs and user-based tagging is given, along with other relevant concepts. A case is then analyzed where viewpoints towards a specific issue are searched for using both tag searching (Technorati) and general search engine searching (Google and Google Blog Search). Findings - The claim to greater accessibility through user-based tagging is not overtly supported with these experiments. Further results for both general and tag-specific searching goes against some common assumptions about the types of content found on weblogs as opposed to more general web sites. Research limitations/implications - User-based tagging is still not widespread enough to give conclusive data for analysis. As this changes, further research in this area, using a variety of search subjects, is warranted. Originality/value - Although proponents of user-based tagging attribute many qualities to the practice, these qualities have not been properly documented or demonstrated. This paper partially rectifies this gap by testing one of the claims made, that of accessibility to alternate views, thus adding to the discussion on tagging for both researchers and other interested parties.
  11. Peters, I.: Benutzerzentrierte Erschließungsverfahren (2013) 0.00
    7.2068995E-4 = product of:
      0.010089659 = sum of:
        0.010089659 = weight(_text_:information in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010089659 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Source
    Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis. 6., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, W. Semar u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried
  12. Rafferty, P.: Tagging (2018) 0.00
    5.04483E-4 = product of:
      0.0070627616 = sum of:
        0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0070627616 = score(doc=4647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Abstract
    This article examines tagging as knowledge organization. Tagging is a kind of indexing, a process of labelling and categorizing information made to support resource discovery for users. Social tagging generally means the practice whereby internet users generate keywords to describe, categorise or comment on digital content. The value of tagging comes when social tags within a collection are aggregated and shared through a folksonomy. This article examines definitions of tagging and folksonomy, and discusses the functions, advantages and disadvantages of tagging systems in relation to knowledge organization before discussing studies that have compared tagging and conventional library-based knowledge organization systems. Approaches to disciplining tagging practice are examined and tagger motivation discussed. Finally, the article outlines current research fronts.
  13. Kim, H.L.; Scerri, S.; Breslin, J.G.; Decker, S.; Kim, H.G.: ¬The state of the art in tag ontologies : a semantic model for tagging and folksonomies (2008) 0.00
    4.7796548E-4 = product of:
      0.0066915164 = sum of:
        0.0066915164 = product of:
          0.020074548 = sum of:
            0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.020074548 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.029633347 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2650, 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=2650)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    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