Search (53 results, page 3 of 3)

3.8787074E-4 = product of:
  0.0058180606 = sum of:
    0.004409519 = weight(_text_:in in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004409519 = score(doc=764,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to provide an overview of the collaborative tagging phenomenon and explore some of the reasons for its emergence. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reviews the related literature and discusses some of the problems associated with, and the potential of, collaborative tagging approaches for knowledge organisation and general resource discovery. A definition of controlled vocabularies is proposed and used to assess the efficacy of collaborative tagging. An exposition of the collaborative tagging model is provided and a review of the major contributions to the tagging literature is presented. Findings - There are numerous difficulties with collaborative tagging systems (e.g. low precision, lack of collocation, etc.) that originate from the absence of properties that characterise controlled vocabularies. However, such systems can not be dismissed. Librarians and information professionals have lessons to learn from the interactive and social aspects exemplified by collaborative tagging systems, as well as their success in engaging users with information management. The future co-existence of controlled vocabularies and collaborative tagging is predicted, with each appropriate for use within distinct information contexts: formal and informal. Research limitations/implications - Librarians and information professional researchers should be playing a leading role in research aimed at assessing the efficacy of collaborative tagging in relation to information storage, organisation, and retrieval, and to influence the future development of collaborative tagging systems. Practical implications - The paper indicates clear areas where digital libraries and repositories could innovate in order to better engage users with information. Originality/value - At time of writing there were no literature reviews summarising the main contributions to the collaborative tagging research or debate.

Source

Library review. 55(2006) no.5, S.291-300

3.8787074E-4 = product of:
  0.0058180606 = sum of:
    0.004409519 = weight(_text_:in in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004409519 = score(doc=2939,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=2939,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

Libraries, private and public, offer valuable resources to library patrons. As of today, the only way to locate information archived exclusively in libraries is through their catalogs. Library patrons, however, often find it difficult to formulate a proper query, which requires using specific keywords assigned to different fields of desired library catalog records, to obtain relevant results. These improperly formulated queries often yield irrelevant results or no results at all. This negative experience in dealing with existing library systems turns library patrons away from directly querying library catalogs; instead, they rely on Web search engines to perform their searches first, and upon obtaining the initial information (e.g., titles, subject headings, or authors) on the desired library materials, they query library catalogs. This searching strategy is an evidence of failure of today's library systems. In solving this problem, we propose an enhanced library system, which allows partial, similarity matching of (a) tags defined by ordinary users at a folksonomy site that describe the content of books and (b) unrestricted keywords specified by an ordinary library patron in a query to search for relevant library catalog records. The proposed library system allows patrons posting a query Q using commonly used words and ranks the retrieved results according to their degrees of resemblance with Q while maintaining the query processing time comparable with that achieved by current library search engines.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.7, S.1392-1406

3.8622867E-4 = product of:
  0.00579343 = sum of:
    0.0046665967 = weight(_text_:in in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046665967 = score(doc=705,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.15905021 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
    0.0011268335 = weight(_text_:s in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0011268335 = score(doc=705,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

What is the role of controlled vocabulary in a Web 2.0 world? Can we have the best of both worlds: balancing folksonomies and controlled vocabularies to help communities of users find and share information and resources most relevant to them? education.au develops and manages Australian online services for education and training. Its goal is to bring people, learning and technology together. education.au projects are increasingly involved in exploring the use of Web 2.0 developments building on user ideas, knowledge and experience, and how these might be integrated with existing information management systems. This paper presents work being undertaken in this area, particularly in relation to controlled vocabularies, and discusses the challenges faced. Education Network Australia (edna) is a leading online resource collection and collaborative network for education, with an extensive repository of selected educational resources with metadata created by educators and information specialists. It uses controlled vocabularies for metadata creation and searching, where users receive suggested related terms from an education thesaurus, with their results. We recognise that no formal thesaurus can keep pace with user needs so are interested in exploiting the power of folksonomies. We describe a proof of concept project to develop community contributions to managing information and resources, using Taxonomy-Directed Folksonomy. An established taxonomy from the Australian education sector suggests terms for tagging and users can suggest terms. Importantly, the folksonomy will feed back into the taxonomy showing gaps in coverage and helping us to monitor new terms and usage to improve and develop our formal taxonomies. This model would initially sit alongside the current edna repositories, tools and services but will give us valuable user contributed resources as well as information about how users manage resources. Observing terms suggested, chosen and used in folksonomies is a rich source of information for developing our formal systems so that we can indeed get the best of both worlds.

3.6212345E-4 = product of:
  0.0054318514 = sum of:
    0.003741601 = weight(_text_:in in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003741601 = score(doc=2272,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 2272, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2272)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=2272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2272, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2272)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Pages

S.282-288

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.11

Source

Culture and identity in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Tenth International ISKO Conference 5-8 August 2008, Montreal, Canada. Ed. by Clément Arsenault and Joseph T. Tennis

3.4848653E-4 = product of:
  0.0052272975 = sum of:
    0.0038187557 = weight(_text_:in in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0038187557 = score(doc=4640,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 4640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=4640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4640)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

The behaviour and lexical quality of the folksonomies is examined by comparing two online social networks: Library-Thing (for books) and Flickr (for photos). We presented a case study that combines quantitative and qualitative elements, singularized by the lexical and functional framework. Our query was made by "Legal History" and by the synonyms "Law History" and "History of Law." We then examined the relevance, consistency and precision of the tags attached to the retrieved documents, in addition to their lexical composition. We identified the difficulties caused by free tagging and some of the folksonomy solutions that have been found to solve them. The results are presented in comparative tables, giving special attention to related tags within each retrieved document. Although the number of ambiguous or inconsistent tags is not very large, these do nevertheless represent the most obvious problem to search and retrieval in folksonomies. Relevance is high when the terms are assigned by especially competent taggers. Even with less expert taggers, ambiguity is often successfully corrected by contextualizing the concepts within related tags. A propinquity to associative and taxonomic lexical semantic knowledge is reached via contextual relationships.

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.7, S.574-585

3.3805514E-4 = product of:
  0.005070827 = sum of:
    0.0039439937 = weight(_text_:in in 5900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039439937 = score(doc=5900,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.13442196 = fieldWeight in 5900, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5900)
    0.0011268335 = weight(_text_:s in 5900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0011268335 = score(doc=5900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 5900, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5900)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

Documentation of art museum collections has been traditionally written by and for art historians. To make art museum collections broadly accessible, and to enable art museums to engage their communities, means of access need to reflect the perspectives of other groups and communities. Social Tagging (the collective assignment of keywords to resources) and its resulting Folksonomy (the assemblage of concepts expressed in such a cooperatively developed system of classification) offer ways for art museums to engage with their communities and to understand what users of online museum collections see as important. Proof of Concept studies at The Metropolitan Museum of Art compared terms assigned by trained cataloguers and untrained cataloguers to existing museum documentation, and explored the potential for social tagging to improve access to museum collections. These preliminary studies, the results of which are reported here, have shown the potential of social tagging and folksonomy to open museum collections to new, more personal meanings. Untrained cataloguers identified content elements not described in formal museum documentation. Results from these tests - the first in the domain - provided validation for exploring social tagging and folksonomy as an access strategy within The Metropolitan Museum, motivation to proceed with a broader inter-institutional collaboration, and input into the development of a multi-institutional collaboration exploring tagging in art museums. Tags assigned by users might help bridge the semantic gap between the professional discourse of the curator and the popular language of the museum visitor. The steve collaboration (http://www.steve.museum) is building on these early studies to develop shared tools and research methods that enable social tagging of art museum collections and explore the utility of folksonomy for providing enhanced access to collections.

Source

New review of hypermedia and multimedia. 12(2006) no.1, S.83-105

3.3724142E-4 = product of:
  0.005058621 = sum of:
    0.0030866629 = weight(_text_:in in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0030866629 = score(doc=404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
    0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019719584 = score(doc=404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

Folksonomy, a free-form tagging, is a user-generated classification system of web contents that allows users to tag their favorite web resources with their chosen words or phrases selected from natural language. These tags (also called concepts, categories, facets or entities) can be used to classify web resources and to express users' preferences. Folksonomy-based systems allow users to classify web resources through tagging bookmarks, photos or other web resources and saving them to a public web site like Del.icio.us. Thus information about web resources and online articles can be shared in an easy way. The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the folksonomy tagging phenomenon (also called social tagging and social bookmarking) and explore some of the reasons why we need controlled vocabularies, discussing the problems associated with folksonomy.

Source

Knowledge organization. 33(2006) no.4, S.199-203

3.3724142E-4 = product of:
  0.005058621 = sum of:
    0.0030866629 = weight(_text_:in in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0030866629 = score(doc=5002,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 5002, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5002)
    0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019719584 = score(doc=5002,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 5002, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5002)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

Traditional knowledge organization approaches struggle to make large user-generated collections navigable, especially when these collections are quickly growing, in which currency is of particular concern, for which professional classification design is too costly. Many of these collections use folksonomies for labelling and organization as a low-cost but flawed knowledge organization approach. While several computational approaches offer ways to ameliorate the worst flaws of folksonomies, some user-generated collections have implemented a human judgment-centered alternative to produce structured folksonomies. An analysis of three such implementations reveals design differences within the space. This approach, termed "curated folksonomy," presents a new object of study for knowledge organization and represents one answer to the tension between scalability and the value of human judgment.

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.8, S.643-652

2.4141562E-4 = product of:
  0.003621234 = sum of:
    0.0024944006 = weight(_text_:in in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024944006 = score(doc=3616,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08501591 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
    0.0011268335 = weight(_text_:s in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0011268335 = score(doc=3616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the linking of a folksonomy (user vocabulary) and LCSH (controlled vocabulary) on the basis of word matching, for the potential use of LCSH in bringing order to folksonomies. Design/methodology/approach - A selected sample of a folksonomy from a popular collaborative tagging system, Delicious, was word-matched with LCSH. LCSH was transformed into a tree structure called an LCSH tree for the matching. A close examination was conducted on the characteristics of folksonomies, the overlap of folksonomies with LCSH, and the distribution of folksonomies over the LCSH tree. Findings - The experimental results showed that the total proportion of tags being matched with LC subject headings constituted approximately two-thirds of all tags involved, with an additional 10 percent of the remaining tags having potential matches. A number of barriers for the linking as well as two areas in need of improving the matching are identified and described. Three important tag distribution patterns over the LCSH tree were identified and supported: skewedness, multifacet, and Zipfian-pattern. Research limitations/implications - The results of the study can be adopted for the development of innovative methods of mapping between folksonomy and LCSH, which directly contributes to effective access and retrieval of tagged web resources and to the integration of multiple information repositories based on the two vocabularies. Practical implications - The linking of controlled vocabularies can be applicable to enhance information retrieval capability within collaborative tagging systems as well as across various tagging system information depositories and bibliographic databases. Originality/value - This is among frontier works that examines the potential of linking a folksonomy, extracted from a collaborative tagging system, to an authority-maintained subject heading system. It provides exploratory data to support further advanced mapping methods for linking the two vocabularies.

Source

Journal of documentation. 65(2009) no.6, S.872-900

2.4088677E-4 = product of:
  0.0036133013 = sum of:
    0.0022047595 = weight(_text_:in in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0022047595 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

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.

Source

Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.4, S.552-575

1.9719971E-4 = product of:
  0.005915991 = sum of:
    0.005915991 = weight(_text_:in in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005915991 = score(doc=309,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
  0.033333335 = coord(1/30)

Abstract

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

Source

Beyond libraries - subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web. IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn

1.6629338E-4 = product of:
  0.004988801 = sum of:
    0.004988801 = weight(_text_:in in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004988801 = score(doc=620,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 620, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=620)
  0.033333335 = coord(1/30)

Abstract

This paper explores the system of categories that is used to classify articles in Wikipedia. It is compared to collaborative tagging systems like del.icio.us and to hierarchical classification like the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). Specifics and commonalities of these systems of subject indexing are exposed. Analysis of structural and statistical properties (descriptors per record, records per descriptor, descriptor levels) shows that the category system of Wikimedia is a thesaurus that combines collaborative tagging and hierarchical subject indexing in a special way.

1.4698398E-4 = product of:
  0.004409519 = sum of:
    0.004409519 = weight(_text_:in in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004409519 = score(doc=1265,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
  0.033333335 = coord(1/30)

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.

Footnote

This piece is based on two talks I gave in the spring of 2005 -- one at the O'Reilly ETech conference in March, entitled "Ontology Is Overrated", and one at the IMCExpo in April entitled "Folksonomies & Tags: The rise of user-developed classification." The written version is a heavily edited concatenation of those two talks.