Search (86 results, page 1 of 5)

0.040627506 = product of:
  0.10834002 = sum of:
    0.038619664 = weight(_text_:wide in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038619664 = score(doc=3290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13148437 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
    0.041903697 = weight(_text_:web in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041903697 = score(doc=3290,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
    0.027816659 = weight(_text_:data in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027816659 = score(doc=3290,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.093835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Social tagging is one of the major phenomena transforming the World Wide Web from a static platform into an actively shared information space. This paper addresses various aspects of social tagging, including different views on the nature of social tagging, how to make use of social tags, and how to bridge social tagging with other Web functionalities; it discusses the use of facets to facilitate browsing and searching of tagging data; and it presents an analogy between bibliometrics and tagometrics, arguing that established bibliometric methodologies can be applied to analyze tagging behavior on the Web. Based on the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO), a Web crawler was built to harvest tag data from Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube in September 2007. In total, 1.8 million objects, including bookmarks, photos, and videos, 3.1 million taggers, and 12.1 million tags were collected and analyzed. Some tagging patterns and variations are identified and discussed.

0.02989477 = product of:
  0.11957908 = sum of:
    0.0643661 = weight(_text_:wide in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0643661 = score(doc=2931,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13148437 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.48953426 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
    0.05521297 = weight(_text_:web in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05521297 = score(doc=2931,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.025366556 = product of:
  0.10146622 = sum of:
    0.054616455 = weight(_text_:wide in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054616455 = score(doc=4323,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13148437 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.4153836 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
    0.046849765 = weight(_text_:web in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046849765 = score(doc=4323,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.023010893 = product of:
  0.061362382 = sum of:
    0.03491975 = weight(_text_:web in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03491975 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = 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)
    0.016391123 = weight(_text_:data in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016391123 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.010051507 = product of:
      0.020103013 = sum of:
        0.020103013 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020103013 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103918076 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029675366 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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

0.022811368 = product of:
  0.060830314 = sum of:
    0.020951848 = weight(_text_:web in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020951848 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = 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)
    0.027816659 = weight(_text_:data in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027816659 = score(doc=3601,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.093835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
    0.012061807 = product of:
      0.024123615 = sum of:
        0.024123615 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024123615 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103918076 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029675366 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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

0.022438793 = product of:
  0.08975517 = sum of:
    0.017459875 = weight(_text_:web in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017459875 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = 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)
    0.07229529 = sum of:
      0.05219228 = weight(_text_:mining in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05219228 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16744171 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
            0.029675366 = queryNorm
          0.31170416 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
      0.020103013 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020103013 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.103918076 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.029675366 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.022127353 = product of:
  0.08850941 = sum of:
    0.065328866 = weight(_text_:web in 432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065328866 = score(doc=432,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = 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)
    0.023180548 = weight(_text_:data in 432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023180548 = score(doc=432,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.093835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 432, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=432)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

Series

Data-centric systems and applications

Source

Semantic search over the Web. Eds.: R. De Virgilio, et al

Theme

Semantic Web

0.022082468 = product of:
  0.088329874 = sum of:
    0.03628967 = weight(_text_:web in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03628967 = score(doc=3421,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 3421, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3421)
    0.052040204 = weight(_text_:data in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052040204 = score(doc=3421,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.093835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.55459267 = fieldWeight in 3421, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3421)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Data integration and mediation have become central concerns of information technology over the past few decades. With the advent of the Web and the rapid increases in the amount of data and the number of Web documents and users, researchers have focused on enhancing the interoperability of data through the development of metadata schemes. Other researchers have looked to the wealth of metadata generated by bookmarking sites on the Social Web. While several existing ontologies have capitalized on the semantics of metadata created by tagging activities, the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO) emphasizes the structure of tagging activities to facilitate modeling of tagging data and the integration of data from different bookmarking sites as well as the alignment of tagging ontologies. UTO is described and its utility in modeling, harvesting, integrating, searching, and analyzing data is demonstrated with metadata harvested from three major social tagging systems (Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube).

0.021848556 = product of:
  0.08739422 = sum of:
    0.045056276 = weight(_text_:wide in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045056276 = score(doc=828,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13148437 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = 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)
    0.042337947 = weight(_text_:web in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042337947 = score(doc=828,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

0.021848556 = product of:
  0.08739422 = sum of:
    0.045056276 = weight(_text_:wide in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045056276 = score(doc=796,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13148437 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = 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)
    0.042337947 = weight(_text_:web in 796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042337947 = score(doc=796,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

0.020711537 = product of:
  0.08284615 = sum of:
    0.046194486 = weight(_text_:web in 3452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046194486 = score(doc=3452,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = 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)
    0.036651667 = weight(_text_:data in 3452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036651667 = score(doc=3452,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.093835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.39059696 = fieldWeight in 3452, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3452)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.01780613 = product of:
  0.07122452 = sum of:
    0.03218305 = weight(_text_:wide in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03218305 = score(doc=2476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13148437 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = 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)
    0.039041467 = weight(_text_:web in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039041467 = score(doc=2476,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

0.0176563 = product of:
  0.0706252 = sum of:
    0.03641097 = weight(_text_:wide in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03641097 = score(doc=4203,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13148437 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = 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)
    0.03421423 = weight(_text_:web in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03421423 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.015955243 = product of:
  0.06382097 = sum of:
    0.017459875 = weight(_text_:web in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017459875 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
    0.046361096 = weight(_text_:data in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046361096 = score(doc=101,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.093835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.49407038 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Social tagging, hashtags, and geotags are used across a variety of platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, WordPress, Instagram) in different countries and cultures. This book, representing researchers and practitioners across different information professions, explores how social tags can link content across a variety of environments. Most studies of social tagging have tended to focus on applications like library catalogs, blogs, and social bookmarking sites. This book, in setting out a theoretical background and the use of a series of case studies, explores the role of hashtags as a form of linked data?without the complex implementation of RDF and other Semantic Web technologies.

LCSH

Linked data
Linked data

RSWK

Linked Data / Social Tagging

Subject

Linked data
Linked data
Linked Data / Social Tagging

0.01317075 = product of:
  0.035122 = sum of:
    0.0139679 = weight(_text_:web in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0139679 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2666, 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=2666)
    0.013112898 = weight(_text_:data in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013112898 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.008041205 = product of:
      0.01608241 = sum of:
        0.01608241 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01608241 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103918076 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029675366 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

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

Source

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

0.012410732 = product of:
  0.049642928 = sum of:
    0.03218305 = weight(_text_:wide in 4938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03218305 = score(doc=4938,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13148437 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 4938, 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=4938)
    0.017459875 = weight(_text_:web in 4938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017459875 = score(doc=4938,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4938, 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=4938)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Tags associated with social images are valuable information source for superior image search and retrieval experiences. Although various heuristics are valuable to boost tag-based search for images, there is a lack of general framework to study the impact of these heuristics. Specifically, the task of ranking images matching a given tag query based on their associated tags in descending order of relevance has not been well studied. In this article, we take the first step to propose a generic, flexible, and extensible framework for this task and exploit it for a systematic and comprehensive empirical evaluation of various methods for ranking images. To this end, we identified five orthogonal dimensions to quantify the matching score between a tagged image and a tag query. These five dimensions are: (i) tag relatedness to measure the degree of effectiveness of a tag describing the tagged image; (ii) tag discrimination to quantify the degree of discrimination of a tag with respect to the entire tagged image collection; (iii) tag length normalization analogous to document length normalization in web search; (iv) tag-query matching model for the matching score computation between an image tag and a query tag; and (v) query model for tag query rewriting. For each dimension, we identify a few implementations and evaluate their impact on NUS-WIDE dataset, the largest human-annotated dataset consisting of more than 269K tagged images from Flickr. We evaluated 81 single-tag queries and 443 multi-tag queries over 288 search methods and systematically compare their performances using standard metrics including Precision at top-K, Mean Average Precision (MAP), Recall, and Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG).

0.012192126 = product of:
  0.048768505 = sum of:
    0.020951848 = weight(_text_:web in 4229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020951848 = score(doc=4229,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4229, 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=4229)
    0.027816659 = weight(_text_:data in 4229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027816659 = score(doc=4229,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.093835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 4229, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4229)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Social media systems have encouraged end user participation in the Internet, for the purpose of storing and distributing Internet content, sharing opinions and maintaining relationships. Collaborative tagging allows users to annotate the resulting user-generated content, and enables effective retrieval of otherwise uncategorised data. However, compared to professional web content production, collaborative tagging systems face the challenge that end-users assign tags in an uncontrolled manner, resulting in unsystematic and inconsistent metadata. This paper introduces a framework for the personalization of social media systems. We pinpoint three tasks that would benefit from personalization: collaborative tagging, collaborative browsing and collaborative search. We propose a ranking model for each task that integrates the individual user's tagging history in the recommendation of tags and content, to align its suggestions to the individual user preferences. We demonstrate on two real data sets that for all three tasks, the personalized ranking should take into account both the user's own preference and the opinion of others.

0.011114092 = product of:
  0.044456366 = sum of:
    0.03024139 = weight(_text_:web in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03024139 = score(doc=2652,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = 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)
    0.014214976 = product of:
      0.028429952 = sum of:
        0.028429952 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028429952 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.103918076 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029675366 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.010423049 = product of:
  0.041692197 = sum of:
    0.029630389 = weight(_text_:web in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029630389 = score(doc=3387,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = 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)
    0.012061807 = product of:
      0.024123615 = sum of:
        0.024123615 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024123615 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103918076 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029675366 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3387)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.010270778 = product of:
  0.041083112 = sum of:
    0.024691992 = weight(_text_:web in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024691992 = score(doc=1265,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.096845865 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = 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)
    0.016391123 = weight(_text_:data in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016391123 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029675366 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.