Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

0.07913525 = product of:
  0.1582705 = sum of:
    0.1582705 = sum of:
      0.07356684 = weight(_text_:web in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07356684 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.084703654 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.084703654 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

Theme

Semantic Web

0.057959333 = product of:
  0.115918666 = sum of:
    0.115918666 = sum of:
      0.07356684 = weight(_text_:web in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07356684 = score(doc=2109,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
      0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042351827 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2109, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2109)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many Web sites have begun allowing users to submit items to a collection and tag them with keywords. The folksonomies built from these tags are an interesting topic that has seen little empirical research. This study compared the search information retrieval (IR) performance of folksonomies from social bookmarking Web sites against search engines and subject directories. Thirty-four participants created 103 queries for various information needs. Results from each IR system were collected and participants judged relevance. Folksonomy search results overlapped with those from the other systems, and documents found by both search engines and folksonomies were significantly more likely to be judged relevant than those returned by any single IR system type. The search engines in the study had the highest precision and recall, but the folksonomies fared surprisingly well. Del.icio.us was statistically indistinguishable from the directories in many cases. Overall the directories were more precise than the folksonomies but they had similar recall scores. Better query handling may enhance folksonomy IR performance further. The folksonomies studied were promising, and may be able to improve Web search performance.

Date

1. 8.2008 12:39:22

0.0515022 = product of:
  0.1030044 = sum of:
    0.1030044 = sum of:
      0.053092297 = weight(_text_:web in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053092297 = score(doc=2652,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.049912106 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049912106 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Folksonomy is the result of describing Web resources with tags created by Web users. Although it has become a popular application for the description of resources, in general terms Folksonomies are not being conveniently integrated in metadata. However, if the appropriate metadata elements are identified, then further work may be conducted to automatically assign tags to these elements (RDF properties) and use them in Semantic Web applications. This article presents research carried out to continue the project Kinds of Tags, which intends to identify elements required for metadata originating from folksonomies and to propose an application profile for DC Social Tagging. The work provides information that may be used by software applications to assign tags to metadata elements and, therefore, means for tags to be conveniently gathered by metadata interoperability tools. Despite the unquestionably high value of DC and the significance of the already existing properties in DC Terms, the pilot study show revealed a significant number of tags for which no corresponding properties yet existed. A need for new properties, such as Action, Depth, Rate, and Utility was determined. Those potential new properties will have to be validated in a later stage by the DC Social Tagging Community.

Pages

S.14-22

Source

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

0.046162233 = product of:
  0.092324466 = sum of:
    0.092324466 = sum of:
      0.042913996 = weight(_text_:web in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042913996 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1267, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1267)
      0.049410466 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049410466 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052098576 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1267, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1267)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This video explores the changes in the way we find, store, create, critique, and share information. This video was created as a conversation starter, and works especially well when brainstorming with people about the near future and the skills needed in order to harness, evaluate, and create information effectively. Ein sehr schöner Kurzfilm von Michael Wesch, dem wir auch den Beitrag zu Web 2.0 (The Machine is Us/ing Us) verdanken (vor einiger Zeit hier besprochen), thematisiert die Veränderung der Handhabung von Information (insbesondere die Strukturierung und Ordnung, aber auch die Generierung und Speicherung), die auf ihre digitale Gestalt zurückzuführen ist. Kernaussage: Da die Informationen keine physikalischen Beschränkungen mehr unterworfen sind, wird die Ordnung der Informationen vielfältiger, flexibler und für jedermann einfacher zugänglich.

Date

5. 1.2008 19:22:48

0.02838494 = product of:
  0.05676988 = sum of:
    0.05676988 = product of:
      0.11353976 = sum of:
        0.11353976 = weight(_text_:web in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11353976 = score(doc=404,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.6677857 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.017135466 = product of:
  0.03427093 = sum of:
    0.03427093 = product of:
      0.06854186 = sum of:
        0.06854186 = weight(_text_:web in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06854186 = score(doc=2476,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Nach dem zu Beginn der Ära des World Wide Web von Hand gepflegte Linklisten und -Verzeichnisse und an Freunde und Kollegen per E-Mail verschickte Links genügten, um die Informationen zu finden, nach denen man suchte, waren schon bald Volltextsuchmaschinen und halbautomatisch betriebene Kataloge notwendig, um den mehr und mehr anschwellenden Informationsfluten des Web Herr zu werden. Heute bereits sind diese Dämme gebrochen und viele Millionen Websites halten Billionen an Einzelseiten mit Informationen vor, von Datenbanken und anderweitig versteckten Informationen ganz zu schweigen. Mit Volltextsuchmaschinen erreicht man bei dieser Masse keine befriedigenden Ergebnisse mehr. Entweder man erzeugt lange Suchterme mit vielen Ausschließungen und ebenso vielen nicht-exklusiven ODER-Verknüpfungen um verschiedene Schreibweisen für den gleichen Term abzudecken oder man wählt von vornherein die Daten-Quelle, an die man seine Fragen stellt, genau aus. Doch oft bleiben nur klassische Web-Suchmaschinen übrig, zumal wenn der Fragende kein Informationsspezialist mit Kenntnissen von Spezialdatenbanken ist, sondern, von dieser Warte aus gesehenen, ein Laie. Und nicht nur im Web selbst, auch in unternehmensinternen Intranets steht man vor diesem Problem. Tausende von indizierten Dokumente mögen ein Eckdatum sein, nach dem sich der Erfolg der Einführung eines Intranets bemessen lässt, aber eine Aussage über die Nützlichkeit ist damit nicht getroffen. Und die bleibt meist hinter den Erwartungen zurück, vor allem bei denen Mitarbeitern, die tatsächlich mit dem Intranet arbeiten müssen. Entscheidend ist für die Informationsauffindung in Inter- und Intranet eine einfach zu nutzende und leicht anpassbare Möglichkeit, neue interessante Inhalte zu entdecken. Mit Tags steht eine mögliche Lösung bereit.

0.015172388 = product of:
  0.030344777 = sum of:
    0.030344777 = product of:
      0.060689554 = sum of:
        0.060689554 = weight(_text_:web in 251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060689554 = score(doc=251,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 251, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Catalogers have always had to balance adherence to cataloging rules and authority files with creating cataloging that is current and relevant to users. That dilemma has been complicated in new ways because of user demands in the world of Web 2.0. Standardized cataloging is crucial for communication between computer systems, but patrons now have an expectation of social interaction on the Internet, as evidenced by the popularity of folksonomy. After a description of traditional subject cataloging and folksonomy, this article discusses several institutions where subject cataloging is still used, but where patron interaction is also encouraged. User-generated tags can coexist with controlled vocabulary such as subject headings.

Object

Web 2.0

0.01501677 = product of:
  0.03003354 = sum of:
    0.03003354 = product of:
      0.06006708 = sum of:
        0.06006708 = weight(_text_:web in 4203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06006708 = score(doc=4203,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.35328537 = fieldWeight in 4203, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4203)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Kollaborative Informationsdienste im Web 2.0 werden von den Internetnutzern nicht nur dazu genutzt, digitale Informationsressourcen zu produzieren, sondern auch, um sie inhaltlich mit eigenen Schlagworten, sog. Tags, zu erschließen. Dabei müssen die Nutzer nicht wie bei Bibliothekskatalogen auf Regeln achten. Die Menge an nutzergenerierten Tags innerhalb eines Kollaborativen Informationsdienstes wird als Folksonomy bezeichnet. Die Folksonomies dienen den Nutzern zum Wiederauffinden eigener Ressourcen und für die Recherche nach fremden Ressourcen. Das Buch beschäftigt sich mit Kollaborativen Informationsdiensten, Folksonomies als Methode der Wissensrepräsentation und als Werkzeug des Information Retrievals.

Footnote

Zugl.: Düsseldorf, Univ., Diss., 2009 u.d.T.: Peters, Isabella: Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval Rez. in: IWP - Information Wissenschaft & Praxis, 61(2010) Heft 8, S.469-470 (U. Spree): "... Nachdem sich die Rezensentin durch 418 Seiten Text hindurch gelesen hat, bleibt sie unentschieden, wie der auffällige Einsatz langer Zitate (im Durchschnitt drei Zitate, die länger als vier kleingedruckte Zeilen sind, pro Seite) zu bewerten ist, zumal die Zitate nicht selten rein illustrativen Charakter haben bzw. Isabella Peters noch einmal zitiert, was sie bereits in eigenen Worten ausgedrückt hat. Redundanz und Verlängerung der Lesezeit halten sich hier die Waage mit der Möglichkeit, dass sich die Leserin einen unmittelbaren Eindruck von Sprache und Duktus der zitierten Literatur verschaffen kann. Eindeutig unschön ist das Beenden eines Gedankens oder einer Argumentation durch ein Zitat (z. B. S. 170). Im deutschen Original entstehen auf diese Weise die für deutsche wissenschaftliche Qualifikationsarbeiten typischen denglischen Texte. Für alle, die sich für Wissensrepräsentation, Information Retrieval und kollaborative Informationsdienste interessieren, ist "Folksonomies : Indexing and Retrieval in Web 2.0" trotz der angeführten kleinen Mängel zur Lektüre und Anschaffung - wegen seines beinahe enzyklopädischen Charakters auch als Nachschlage- oder Referenzwerk geeignet - unbedingt zu empfehlen. Abschließend möchte ich mich in einem Punkt der Produktinfo von de Gruyter uneingeschränkt anschließen: ein "Grundlagenwerk für Folksonomies".

Object

Web 2.0

RSWK

World Wide Web 2.0

Subject

World Wide Web 2.0

0.01083742 = product of:
  0.02167484 = sum of:
    0.02167484 = product of:
      0.04334968 = sum of:
        0.04334968 = weight(_text_:web in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04334968 = score(doc=289,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Children are increasingly using the Web. Cognitive theory tells us that directory structures are especially suited for information retrieval by children; however, empirical results show that they prefer keyword searching. One of the reasons for these findings could be that the directory structures and terminology are created by grown-ups. Using a card-sorting method and an enveloping system, we simulated the structure of a directory. Our goal was to try to understand what browsable, hierarchical subject categories children create when suggested terms are supplied and they are free to add or delete terms. Twelve groups of four children each (fourth and fifth graders) participated in our exploratory study. The initial terminology presented to the children was based on names of categories used in popular directories, in the sections on Arts, Television, Music, Cinema, and Celebrities. The children were allowed to introduce additional cards and change the terms appearing on the 61 cards. Findings show that the different groups reached reasonable consensus; the majority of the category names used by existing directories were acceptable by them and only a small minority of the terms caused confusion. Our recommendation is to include children in the design process of directories, not only in designing the interface but also in designing the content structure as well.

0.01083742 = product of:
  0.02167484 = sum of:
    0.02167484 = product of:
      0.04334968 = sum of:
        0.04334968 = weight(_text_:web in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04334968 = score(doc=1265,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.01061846 = product of:
  0.02123692 = sum of:
    0.02123692 = product of:
      0.04247384 = sum of:
        0.04247384 = weight(_text_:web in 705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04247384 = score(doc=705,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.24981049 = fieldWeight in 705, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=705)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Object

Web 2.0

0.009195855 = product of:
  0.01839171 = sum of:
    0.01839171 = product of:
      0.03678342 = sum of:
        0.03678342 = weight(_text_:web in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03678342 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Die populären Web 2.0-Dienste werden von Prosumern - Produzenten und gleichsam Konsumenten - nicht nur dazu genutzt, Inhalte zu produzieren, sondern auch, um sie inhaltlich zu erschließen. Folksonomies erlauben es dem Nutzer, Dokumente mit eigenen Schlagworten, sog. Tags, zu beschreiben, ohne dabei auf gewisse Regeln oder Vorgaben achten zu müssen. Neben einigen Vorteilen zeigen Folksonomies aber auch zahlreiche Schwächen (u. a. einen Mangel an Präzision). Um diesen Nachteilen größtenteils entgegenzuwirken, schlagen wir eine Interpretation der Tags als natürlichsprachige Wörter vor. Dadurch ist es uns möglich, Methoden des Natural Language Processing (NLP) auf die Tags anzuwenden und so linguistische Probleme der Tags zu beseitigen. Darüber hinaus diskutieren wir Ansätze und weitere Vorschläge (Tagverteilungen, Kollaboration und akteurspezifische Aspekte) hinsichtlich eines Relevance Rankings von getaggten Dokumenten. Neben Vorschlägen auf ähnliche Dokumente ("more like this!") erlauben Folksonomies auch Hinweise auf verwandte Nutzer und damit auf Communities ("more like me!").

0.008823298 = product of:
  0.017646596 = sum of:
    0.017646596 = product of:
      0.03529319 = sum of:
        0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03529319 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.007663213 = product of:
  0.015326426 = sum of:
    0.015326426 = product of:
      0.030652853 = sum of:
        0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030652853 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.007663213 = product of:
  0.015326426 = sum of:
    0.015326426 = product of:
      0.030652853 = sum of:
        0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030652853 = score(doc=2939,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.007058638 = product of:
  0.014117276 = sum of:
    0.014117276 = product of:
      0.028234553 = sum of:
        0.028234553 = weight(_text_:22 in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028234553 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3373, 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=3373)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.0061305705 = product of:
  0.012261141 = sum of:
    0.012261141 = product of:
      0.024522282 = sum of:
        0.024522282 = weight(_text_:web in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024522282 = score(doc=3616,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 3616, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3616)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.