Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Heckner, M.; Mühlbacher, S.; Wolff, C.: Tagging tagging : a classification model for user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems (2007) 0.05 
    0.052079234 = product of:
  0.08679872 = sum of:
    0.032278713 = weight(_text_:context in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032278713 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.18316938 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
    0.03588033 = weight(_text_:index in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03588033 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.1931181 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
    0.018639674 = weight(_text_:system in 533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018639674 = score(doc=533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=533)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Recently, a growing amount of systems that allow personal content annotation (tagging) are being created, ranging from personal sites for organising bookmarks (del.icio.us), photos (flickr.com) or videos (video.google.com, youtube.com) to systems for managing bibliographies for scientific research projects (citeulike.org, connotea.org). Simultaneously, a debate on the pro and cons of allowing users to add personal keywords to digital content has arisen. One recurrent point-of-discussion is whether tagging can solve the well-known vocabulary problem: In order to support successful retrieval in complex environments, it is necessary to index an object with a variety of aliases (cf. Furnas 1987). In this spirit, social tagging enhances the pool of rigid, traditional keywording by adding user-created retrieval vocabularies. Furthermore, tagging goes beyond simple personal content-based keywords by providing meta-keywords like funny or interesting that "identify qualities or characteristics" (Golder and Huberman 2006, Kipp and Campbell 2006, Kipp 2007, Feinberg 2006, Kroski 2005). Contrarily, tagging systems are claimed to lead to semantic difficulties that may hinder the precision and recall of tagging systems (e.g. the polysemy problem, cf. Marlow 2006, Lakoff 2005, Golder and Huberman 2006). Empirical research on social tagging is still rare and mostly from a computer linguistics or librarian point-of-view (Voß 2007) which focus either on the automatic statistical analyses of large data sets, or intellectually inspect single cases of tag usage: Some scientists studied the evolution of tag vocabularies and tag distribution in specific systems (Golder and Huberman 2006, Hammond 2005). Others concentrate on tagging behaviour and tagger characteristics in collaborative systems. (Hammond 2005, Kipp and Campbell 2007, Feinberg 2006, Sen 2006). However, little research has been conducted on the functional and linguistic characteristics of tags.1 An analysis of these patterns could show differences between user wording and conventional keywording. In order to provide a reasonable basis for comparison, a classification system for existing tags is needed.
    Therefore our main research questions are as follows: - Is it possible to discover regular patterns in tag usage and to establish a stable category model? - Does a specific tagging language comparable to internet slang or chatspeak evolve? - How do social tags differ from traditional (author / expert) keywords? - To what degree are social tags taken from or findable in the full text of the tagged resource? - Do tags in a research literature context go beyond simple content description (e.g. tags indicating time or task-related information, cf. Kipp et al. 2006)?
  2. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.03 
    0.03157078 = product of:
  0.07892695 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 2648, 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=2648)
    0.038578555 = product of:
      0.057867832 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, 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=2648)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The growing predominance of social semantics in the form of tagging presents the metadata community with both opportunities and challenges as for leveraging this new form of information content representation and for retrieval. One key challenge is the absence of contextual information associated with these tags. This paper presents an experiment working with Flickr tags as an example of utilizing social semantics sources for enriching subject metadata. The procedure included four steps: 1) Collecting a sample of Flickr tags, 2) Calculating cooccurrences between tags through mutual information, 3) Tracing contextual information of tag pairs via Google search results, 4) Applying natural language processing and machine learning techniques to extract semantic relations between tags. The experiment helped us to build a context sentence collection from the Google search results, which was then processed by natural language processing and machine learning algorithms. This new approach achieved a reasonably good rate of accuracy in assigning semantic relations to tag pairs. This paper also explores the implications of this approach for using social semantics to enrich subject metadata.
    Date
    20. 2.2009 10:29:07
    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
  3. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.02 
    0.021780593 = product of:
  0.05445148 = sum of:
    0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044850416 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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".
  4. Furner, J.: User tagging of library resources : toward a framework for system evaluation (2007) 0.02 
    0.015834149 = product of:
  0.03958537 = sum of:
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 703, 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=703)
    0.011625858 = product of:
      0.034877572 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:29:31
  5. Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008) 0.01 
    0.012345138 = product of:
  0.061725687 = sum of:
    0.061725687 = product of:
      0.09258853 = sum of:
        0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04650343 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
        0.046085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046085097 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 9:55:29
    Pages
    S.15-22
  6. Abbas, J.: In the margins : reflections on scribbles (2007) 0.01 
    0.01129755 = product of:
  0.05648775 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=659)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Marginalia or 'scribbling in the margins' is a means for readers to add a more in-depth level of granularity and subject representation to digital documents such as those present in social sharing environments like Flickr and del.icio.us. Social classification and social sharing sites development of user-defined descriptors or tags is discussed in the context of knowledge organization. With this position paper I present a rationale for the use of the resulting folksonomies and tag clouds being developed in these social sharing communities as a rich source of information about our users and their natural organization processes. The knowledge organization community needs to critically examine our understandings of these emerging classificatory schema and determine how best to adapt, augment, revitalize existing knowledge organization structures.
  7. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.01 
    0.01052821 = product of:
  0.026320525 = sum of:
    0.018639674 = weight(_text_:system in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018639674 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.0076808496 = product of:
      0.023042548 = sum of:
        0.023042548 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023042548 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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
  8. Vander Wal, T.: Welcome to the Matrix! (2008) 0.01 
    0.01052821 = product of:
  0.026320525 = sum of:
    0.018639674 = weight(_text_:system in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018639674 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
    0.0076808496 = product of:
      0.023042548 = sum of:
        0.023042548 = weight(_text_:22 in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023042548 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2881, 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=2881)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    My keynote at the workshop "Social Tagging in Knowledge Organization" was a great opportunity to make and share new experiences. For the first time ever, I sat in my office at home and gave a live web video presentation to a conference audience elsewhere on the globe. At the same time, it was also an opportunity to premier my conceptual model "Matrix of Perception" to an interdisciplinary audience of researchers and practitioners with a variety of backgrounds - reaching from philosophy, psychology, pedagogy and computation to library science and economics. The interdisciplinary approach of the conference is also mirrored in the structure of this volume, with articles on the theoretical background, the empirical analysis and the potential applications of tagging, for instance in university libraries, e-learning, or e-commerce. As an introduction to the topic of "social tagging" I would like to draw your attention to some foundation concepts of the phenomenon I have racked my brain with for the last few month. One thing I have seen missing in recent research and system development is a focus on the variety of user perspectives in social tagging. Different people perceive tagging in complex variegated ways and use this form of knowledge organization for a variety of purposes. My analytical interest lies in understanding the personas and patterns in tagging systems and in being able to label their different perceptions. To come up with a concise picture of user expectations, needs and activities, I have broken down the perspectives on tagging into two different categories, namely "faces" and "depth". When put together, they form the "Matrix of Perception" - a nuanced view of stakeholders and their respective levels of participation.
    Date
    22. 6.2009 9:15:45
  9. Simon, J.: Interdisciplinary knowledge creation : using wikis in science (2006) 0.01 
    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.
  10. Lewen, H.: Personalisierte Ordnung von Objekten basierend auf Vertrauensnetzwerken (2008) 0.01 
    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.
  11. Hotho, A.; Jäschke, R.; Benz, D.; Grahl, M.; Krause, B.; Schmitz, C.; Stumme, G.: Social Bookmarking am Beispiel BibSonomy (2009) 0.01 
    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.
  12. BOND: Katalogisate-Pool BCS kommt gut an (2008) 0.01 
    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.
  13. Lüth, J.: Inhaltserschließung von Internetquellen durch Nutzerinnen und Nutzer : Ergebnisse eines Tests mit Internetquellen der Virtuellen Fachbibliothek EconBiz (2009) 0.01 
    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.
  14. Heckner, M.: Tagging, rating, posting : studying forms of user contribution for web-based information management and information retrieval (2009) 0.01 
    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
  15. Hidderley, R.; Rafferty, P.: Flickr and democratic indexing : disciplining desire lines (2006) 0.01 
    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'.
  16. Simon, D.: Anreicherung bibliothekarischer Titeldaten durch Tagging : Möglichkeiten und Probleme (2007) 0.01 
    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.
  17. Voß, J.: Vom Social Tagging zum Semantic Tagging (2008) 0.01 
    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.
  18. Rafferty, P.; Hidderley, R.: Flickr and democratic Indexing : dialogic approaches to indexing (2007) 0.01 
    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.
  19. Hammond, T.; Hannay, T.; Lund, B.; Flack, M.: Social bookmarking tools (II) : a case study - Connotea (2005) 0.00 
    0.0046599186 = product of:
  0.023299592 = sum of:
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Connotea is a free online reference management and social bookmarking service for scientists created by Nature Publishing Group. While somewhat experimental in nature, Connotea already has a large and growing number of users, and is a real, fully functioning service. The label 'experimental' is not meant to imply that the service is any way ephemeral or esoteric, rather that the concept of social bookmarking itself and the application of that concept to reference management are both recent developments. Connotea is under active development, and we are still in the process of discovering how people will use it. In addition to Connotea being a free and public service, the core code is freely available under an open source license. Connotea was conceived from the outset as an online, social tool. Seeing the possibilities that del.icio.us was opening up for its users in the area of general web linking, we realised that scholarly reference management was a similar problem space. Connotea was designed and developed late in 2004, and soft-launched at the end of December 2004. Usage has grown over the past several months, to the point where there is now enough data in the system for interesting second-order effects to emerge. This paper will start by giving an overview of Connotea, and will outline the key concepts and describe its main features. We will then take the reader on a brief guided tour, show some of the aforementioned second-order effects, and end with a discussion of Connotea's likely future direction.
  20. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.00 
    0.0027155904 = product of:
  0.013577952 = sum of:
    0.013577952 = product of:
      0.040733855 = sum of:
        0.040733855 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040733855 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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

Authors

Languages

  • e 20
  • d 8
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 24
  • el 4
  • b 2
  • m 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications