Search (61 results, page 2 of 4)

0.009683615 = product of:
  0.04841807 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=873,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 873, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=873)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Social or collaborative tagging enables users to organize and label resources on the web. Libraries and other information environments hope that tagging can complement professional subject access with user-created terms. But who are the taggers, and does their language represent that of the user population? Some language theorists believe that inherent variables, such as gender or race, can be responsible for language use, whereas other researchers endorse more multiply-influenced practice-based approaches, where interactions with others affect language use more than a single variable. To explore whether linguistic variation in tagging is influenced more by gender or context, in this exploratory study, I will analyze the content and quantity of tags used on LibraryThing. This study seeks to dismantle stereotypical views of women's language use and to suggest a community of practice-based approach to analyzing social tags.

0.008970084 = product of:
  0.044850416 = sum of:
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 4064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=4064,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 4064, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4064)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The question of whether tags can be useful in the process of information retrieval was examined in this pilot study. Many tags are subject related and could work well as index terms or entry vocabulary; however, folksonomies also include relationships that are traditionally not included in controlled vocabularies including affective or time and task related tags and the user name of the tagger. Participants searched a social bookmarking tool, specialising in academic articles (CiteULike), and an online journal database (Pubmed) for articles relevant to a given information request. Screen capture software was used to collect participant actions and a semi-structured interview asked them to describe their search process. Preliminary results showed that participants did use tags in their search process, as a guide to searching and as hyperlinks to potentially useful articles. However, participants also used controlled vocabularies in the journal database to locate useful search terms and links to related articles supplied by Pubmed. Additionally, participants reported using user names of taggers and group names to help select resources by relevance. The inclusion of subjective and social information from the taggers is very different from the traditional objectivity of indexing and was reported as an asset by a number of participants. This study suggests that while users value social and subjective factors when searching, they also find utility in objective factors such as subject headings. Most importantly, users are interested in the ability of systems to connect them with related articles whether via subject access or other means.

0.008970084 = product of:
  0.044850416 = sum of:
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=295,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 295, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=295)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The object of this empirical research study is emotion, as depicted and aroused in videos. This paper seeks to answer the questions: Are users able to index such emotions consistently? Are the users' votes usable for emotional video retrieval? Design/methodology/approach - The authors worked with a controlled vocabulary for nine basic emotions (love, happiness, fun, surprise, desire, sadness, anger, disgust and fear), a slide control for adjusting the emotions' intensity, and the approach of broad folksonomies. Different users tagged the same videos. The test persons had the task of indexing the emotions of 20 videos (reprocessed clips from YouTube). The authors distinguished between emotions which were depicted in the video and those that were evoked in the user. Data were received from 776 participants and a total of 279,360 slide control values were analyzed. Findings - The consistency of the users' votes is very high; the tag distributions for the particular videos' emotions are stable. The final shape of the distributions will be reached by the tagging activities of only very few users (less than 100). By applying the approach of power tags it is possible to separate the pivotal emotions of every document - if indeed there is any feeling at all. Originality/value - This paper is one of the first steps in the new research area of emotional information retrieval (EmIR). To the authors' knowledge, it is the first research project into the collective indexing of emotions in videos.

0.008069678 = product of:
  0.040348392 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 2516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=2516,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 2516, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2516)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article focuses on two aspects of knowledge generation. First, I want to explore how new knowledge is created in interdisciplinary discourses and, second, how this process might be mediated and promoted by the use of wikis. I suggest that it is the noise coming to life in (ex)changes of perspectives that enables the creation of new knowledge. In section 1-4, I am going to examine how the concepts of noise from the mathematical theory of communication (Shannon 1948) on the one hand and theories of organizational knowledge creation (cf. Nonaka 1994) on the other might help to understand the process of interdisciplinary knowledge creation. In section 5 I am going to explore the role wiki technologies can play in supporting interdisciplinary collaborations. This section is influenced by own experiences in a wiki-based interdisciplinary collaboration. It seems that even though certain features of wiki technology make it an excellent tool to externalize and combine individual knowledge leaving room for noise and at the same time documenting this process, the full benefit of wikis can only be obtained if they are embedded into a broader communication context.

0.008069678 = product of:
  0.040348392 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 4220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=4220,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 4220, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4220)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Taxonomy construction is a resource-demanding, top-down, and time consuming effort. It does not always cater for the prevailing context of the captured information. This paper proposes a novel approach to automatically convert tags into a hierarchical taxonomy. Folksonomy describes the process by which many users add metadata in the form of keywords or tags to shared content. Using folksonomy as a knowledge source for nominating tags, the proposed method first converts the tags into a hierarchy. This serves to harness a core set of taxonomy terms; the generated hierarchical structure facilitates users' information navigation behavior and permits personalizations. Newly acquired tags are then progressively integrated into a taxonomy in a largely automated way to complete the taxonomy creation process. Common taxonomy construction techniques are based on 3 main approaches: clustering, lexico-syntactic pattern matching, and automatic acquisition from machine-readable dictionaries. In contrast to these prevailing approaches, this paper proposes a taxonomy construction analysis based on heuristic rules and deep syntactic analysis. The proposed method requires only a relatively small corpus to create a preliminary taxonomy. The approach has been evaluated using an expert-defined taxonomy in the environmental protection domain and encouraging results were yielded.

0.008069678 = product of:
  0.040348392 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=296,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

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

0.008069678 = product of:
  0.040348392 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=416,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 416, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=416)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In many digital libraries, visual objects are published and metadata attached to allow for search and retrieval. For visual objects in which people appear, names are often added to the metadata so that digital library users can search for people appearing in these objects. Although this seems straightforward, there are ethical implications of adding names to metadata for visual objects. This paper explores the impact of this action and discusses relevant ethical issues it raises. It asserts that an individual's right to privacy and control over personal information must be weighed against the benefit of the object to society and the professional ethic to authentically represent a resource through its metadata. Context and an understanding of the major ethical issues will inform the practical decision of whether to keep objects online and add metadata to them, but items should generally be published unless there are clear ethical violations or a community relationship is in jeopardy.

0.008069678 = product of:
  0.040348392 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 3347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=3347,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 3347, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3347)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The cultural heritage sector has embraced social tagging as a way to increase both access to online content and to engage users with their digital collections. In this article, we build on two current lines of research. (a) We use Waisda?, an existing labeling game, to add time-based annotations to content. (b) In this context, we investigate the role of experts in human-based computation (nichesourcing). We report on a small-scale experiment in which we applied Waisda? to content from film archives. We study the differences in the type of time-based tags between experts and novices for film clips in a crowdsourcing setting. The findings show high similarity in the number and type of tags (mostly factual). In the less frequent tags, however, experts used more domain-specific terms. We conclude that competitive games are not suited to elicit real expert-level descriptions. We also confirm that providing guidelines, based on conceptual frameworks that are more suited to moving images in a time-based fashion, could result in increasing the quality of the tags, thus allowing for creating more tag-based innovative services for online audiovisual heritage.

0.008069678 = product of:
  0.040348392 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 3828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=3828,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 3828, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3828)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to understand users' motivations and intentions in the use of institutional collections on social tagging sites. Previous social tagging studies have collected social tagging data and analyzed how tagging functions as a tool to organize and retrieve information. Many studies focused on the patterns of tagging rather than the users' perspectives. To provide a more comprehensive picture of users' social tagging activities in institutional collections, and how this compares to social tagging in a more personal context, we collected data from social tagging users by surveying 7,563 participants in the Library of Congress's Flickr Collection. We asked users to describe their motivations for activities within the LC Flickr Collection in their own words using open-ended questions. As a result, we identified 11 motivations using a bottom-up, open-coding approach: affective reactions, opinion on photo, interest in subject, contribution to description, knowledge sharing, improving findability, social network, appreciation, personal use, and personal relationship. Our study revealed that affective or emotional reactions play a critical role in the use of social tagging of institutional collections by comparing our findings to existing frameworks for tagging motivations. We also examined the relationships between participants' occupations and our 11 motivations.

0.007908144 = product of:
  0.03954072 = sum of:
    0.03954072 = weight(_text_:system in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03954072 = score(doc=309,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.00745587 = product of:
  0.03727935 = sum of:
    0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 2305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03727935 = score(doc=2305,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 2305, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2305)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Open Rating Systeme werden zur Be­wertung unterschiedlichster Objekte eingesetzt. Benutzer können Rezensionen über Objekte verfassen, andere Benutzer können die Qualität dieser Rezensionen bewerten. Basierend auf diesen Bewertungen der Rezensionen wird ein Vertrauensnetzwerk (Web of Trust) aufgebaut. Zwei Benutzer werden durch eine gerichtete Kante verbunden, wenn ein Benutzer dem System mitteilt, dass er einem anderen Benutzer vertraut, Inhalte korrekt zu bewerten. Basierend auf diesem persönlichen Vertrauensnetzwerk werden Objekte und auch die Rezensionen für ein bestimmtes Objekt individuell für jeden Benutzer angeordnet.

0.00745587 = product of:
  0.03727935 = sum of:
    0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 4873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03727935 = score(doc=4873,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 4873, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4873)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

BibSonomy ist ein kooperatives Verschlagwortungssystem (Social Bookmarking System), betrieben vom Fachgebiet Wissensverarbeitung der Universität Kassel. Es erlaubt das Speichern und Organisieren von Web-Lesezeichen und Metadaten für wissenschaftliche Publikationen. In diesem Beitrag beschreiben wir die von BibSonomy bereitgestellte Funktionalität, die dahinter stehende Architektur sowie das zugrunde liegende Datenmodell. Ferner erläutern wir Anwendungsbeispiele und gehen auf Methoden zur Analyse der in BibSonomy und ähnlichen Systemen enthaltenen Daten ein.

0.0065901205 = product of:
  0.032950602 = sum of:
    0.032950602 = weight(_text_:system in 1977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032950602 = score(doc=1977,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 1977, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1977)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

»Die rasante Entwicklung des BOND Community System (BCS) übertrifft unsere Erwartungen«, erklärt Andreas Serr, Produktmanager der BOND-Tochter BOND Library Service GmbH &Co. KG (BLS). Bereits über 10.000 neue Datensätze wurden in den letzten Monaten von BOND-Kunden für BOND-Kunden in den gemeinsamen Datenpool erfasst. Tendenz schnell steigend. Der komplette Katalogisate-Pool, der den Nutzern kostenlos zur Verfügung steht, umfasst inzwischen fast 700.000 Katalogisate. »Das Schöne an BCS ist, dass alle davon profitieren«, unterstreicht Serr. Den Teilnehmern entstehen weder Kosten noch Mehrarbeit. Die Datenübernahme erfolgt bequem per Mausklick aus dem Daten-Pool direkt in den eigenen Katalog. Fast noch einfacher ist es, Daten in BCS zur Verfügung zu stellen. Man erfasst sein Katalogisat wie immer. Mit dem Klick zum Abspeichern landen die Daten automatisch im BCS-Pool. »Damit macht man mit seiner täglichen Arbeit viele andere Bibliotheken glücklich«, ergänzt Serr. Dank der großen Zahl und der Kooperationsbereitschaft der BOND-Anwender funktioniert das System jetzt schon prächtig. »Irgendwie ist die Idee genial und einfach zugleich!« schrieb eine Kundin, die seit Mitte März am BCS teilnimmt. Wie wird man BCS Teilnehmer? Am BCS teilnehmen können alle Anwender von BIBLIOTHECA 2000 (ab Version 2.9) und BIBLIOTHECA.net (Version 2.1). Die Erst-Anmeldung erfolgt per Anmelde-PDF, das unter www.library-service.de/ bcs.htm zum Download bereitsteht. Die Freischaltung erfolgt dann in der Regel innerhalb 24 Stunden.

0.0065901205 = product of:
  0.032950602 = sum of:
    0.032950602 = weight(_text_:system in 2784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032950602 = score(doc=2784,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 2784, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2784)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

EconBiz, die Virtuelle Fachbibliothek Wirtschaftswissenschaften, wird gemeinsam von der Deutschen Zentralbibliothek für Wirtschaftswissenschaften (ZBW) und der Universitäts- und Stadtbibliothek Köln angeboten. Ein zentraler Bestandteil von EconBiz ist der Fachinformationsführer für Internetquellen, der derzeit über 16.000 Datensätze umfasst. Der Fachinformationsführer dient der Recherche nach Internetquellen und frei verfügbaren Volltexten. Die Erschließung dieser Quellen erfolgt arbeitsteilig durch bibliothekarisches und wissenschaftliches Personal im LinkShare System, einem System für die kooperative Erschließung und Verwaltung digitaler Netzobjekte. Nutzerinnen und Nutzer von EconBiz haben die Möglichkeit, Quellen für die Aufnahme in den Fachinformationsführer vorzuschlagen. Eine Beteiligung an der inhaltlichen Erschließung der Quellen erfolgt nicht. In Social-Bookmarking-Portalen wie "deLicio.us", "Furl" oder "Mister Wong" haben Nutzerinnen und Nutzer die Möglichkeit, eigene Listen mit Lesezeichen, englisch "Bookmarks", zu verwalten. Dazu bieten die verschiedenen Anbieter dieser Dienste allerhand nützliche Funktionen, u. a. mit folgenden Merkmalen: - Vergabe von Kategorien oder Schlagworten, so genannten "Tags", - Anlegen privater oder öffentlicher Bookmarks, - Abspeichern einer Version der Quelle. Derzeit üben diese Dienste eine sehr hohe Anziehungskraft auf Nutzerinnen und Nutzer aus, zum einen für die Verwaltung der eigenen Lesezeichen, zum anderen als Instrument für die Recherche nach relevanten Quellen. Mehr über das Potential und die Einsatzmöglichkeiten von Social-Bookmarking-Diensten möchte die ZBW im Rahmen eines Projekts "Inhaltserschließung durch Nutzerinnen und Nutzer" erfahren. Dafür wurde über einen begrenzten Zeitraum eine Teilmenge der im EconBiz-Fachinformationsführer enthaltenen Internetquellen in Social-Bookmarking-Webseiten angeboten. Ziel ist es, Erkenntnisse darüber zu gewinnen, in welchem Umfang diese von den Nutzerinnen und Nutzern der Socaial-Bookmarking-Dienste nachgenutzt und um eigene Schlagworte ergänzt werden.

0.0065901205 = product of:
  0.032950602 = sum of:
    0.032950602 = weight(_text_:system in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032950602 = score(doc=2931,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.006523886 = product of:
  0.03261943 = sum of:
    0.03261943 = weight(_text_:system in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03261943 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In this paper, we consider three models of subject indexing, and compare and contrast two indexing approaches, the theoretically based democratic indexing project, and Flickr, a working system for describing photographs. We argue that, despite Shirky's (2005) claim of philosophical paradigm shifting for social tagging, there is a residing doubt amongst information professionals that self-organising systems can work without there being some element of control and some form of 'representative authority'.

0.006523886 = product of:
  0.03261943 = sum of:
    0.03261943 = weight(_text_:system in 530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03261943 = score(doc=530,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 530, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=530)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Die Arbeit ist die untersucht dier Möglichkeiten von Tagging-Verfahren im Kontext bibliothekarischer Erschließung. Der Verfasser führt dazu in das Thema Social Tagging bzw. Folksonomy ein und erklärt die Funktionsweise von Tagging-Systemen. Die Untersuchung stützt sich im wesentlichen auf eine Analyse des KölnerUniversitätsGesamtkatalogs (KUG), der direktes Tagging durch Katalognutzer ebenso ermöglicht wie die Übernahme von Katalogeinträgen für das System BibSonomy. KUG und BibSonomy werden daher mit ihren Eigenschaften vorgestellt, bevor eine bewertende Analyse der Taggingmöglichkeiten und deren bisheriger tatsächlicher Nutzung vorgenommen wird. Dabei untersucht der Verfasser auch den möglichen Beitrag von Tagging-Verfahren in Ergänzung zu den Ergebnissen von Verfahren der inhaltlichen Erschließung und automatischen Indexierung.

0.006523886 = product of:
  0.03261943 = sum of:
    0.03261943 = weight(_text_:system in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03261943 = score(doc=2884,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Social Tagging als freie Verschlagwortung durch Nutzer im Web wird immer häufiger mit der Idee des Semantic Web in Zusammenhang gebracht. Wie beide Konzepte in der Praxis konkret zusammenkommen sollen, bleibt jedoch meist unklar. Dieser Artikel soll hier Aufklärung leisten, indem die Kombination von Social Tagging und Semantic Web in Form von Semantic Tagging mit dem Simple Knowledge Organisation System dargestellt und auf die konkreten Möglichkeiten, Vorteile und offenen Fragen der Semantischen Indexierung eingegangen wird.

0.0055919024 = product of:
  0.027959513 = sum of:
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is two-fold: to examine three models of subject indexing (i.e. expert-led indexing, author-generated indexing, and user-orientated indexing); and to compare and contrast two user-orientated indexing approaches (i.e. the theoretically-based Democratic Indexing project, and Flickr, a working system for describing photographs). Design/methodology/approach - The approach to examining Flickr and Democratic Indexing is evaluative. The limitations of Flickr are described and examples are provided. The Democratic Indexing approach, which the authors believe offers a method of marshalling a "free" user-indexed archive to provide useful retrieval functions, is described. Findings - The examination of both Flickr and the Democratic Indexing approach suggests that, despite Shirky's claim of philosophical paradigm shifting for social tagging, there is a residing doubt amongst information professionals that self-organising systems can work without there being some element of control and some form of "representative authority". Originality/value - This paper contributes to the literature of user-based indexing and social tagging.

0.0055919024 = product of:
  0.027959513 = sum of:
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=2492,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The internet in its Web 2.0 version has given an opportunity among users to be participative and the chance to enhance the existing system, which makes it dynamic and collaborative. The activity of social tagging among researchers to organize the digital resources is an interesting study among information professionals. The one way of organizing the resources for future retrieval through these user-generated terms makes an interesting analysis by comparing them with professionally created controlled vocabularies. Here in this study, an attempt has been made to compare Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) terms with LibraryThing social tags. In this comparative analysis, the results show that social tags can be used to enhance the metadata for information retrieval. But still, the uncontrolled nature of social tags is a concern and creates uncertainty among researchers.