Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.10755379 = product of:
  0.21510758 = sum of:
    0.21510758 = product of:
      0.43021515 = sum of:
        0.43021515 = weight(_text_:tagging in 4647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.43021515 = score(doc=4647,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.44391 = fieldWeight in 4647, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article examines tagging as knowledge organization. Tagging is a kind of indexing, a process of labelling and categorizing information made to support resource discovery for users. Social tagging generally means the practice whereby internet users generate keywords to describe, categorise or comment on digital content. The value of tagging comes when social tags within a collection are aggregated and shared through a folksonomy. This article examines definitions of tagging and folksonomy, and discusses the functions, advantages and disadvantages of tagging systems in relation to knowledge organization before discussing studies that have compared tagging and conventional library-based knowledge organization systems. Approaches to disciplining tagging practice are examined and tagger motivation discussed. Finally, the article outlines current research fronts.

Theme

Social tagging

0.06871359 = product of:
  0.13742718 = sum of:
    0.13742718 = product of:
      0.27485436 = sum of:
        0.27485436 = weight(_text_:tagging in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27485436 = score(doc=1792,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.9224802 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of the research is to explore relationships between social tagging and key poststructuralist principles; to devise and construct an analytical framework through which key poststructuralist principles are converted into workable research questions and applied to analyse Librarything tags, and to assess the validity of performing such an analysis. The research hypothesis is that tagging represents an imperfect analogy for the poststructuralist project Design/methodology/approach Tags from LibraryThing and from a library OPAC were compared and constrasted with Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and publishers' descriptions. Research questions derived from poststructuralism, asked whether tags destabilise meaning, whether and how far the death of the author is expressed in tags, and whether tags deconstruct LCSH. Findings Tags can temporarily destabilise meaning by obfuscating the structure of a word. Meaning is destabilised, perhaps only momentarily, and then it is recreated; it might resemble the original meaning, or it may not, however any attempt to make tags useful or functional necessarily imposes some form of structure. The analysis indicates that in tagging, the author, if not dead, is ignored. Authoritative interpretations are not pervasively mimicked in the tags. In relation to LCSH, tagging decentres the dominant view, but neither exposes nor judges it. Nor does tagging achieve the final stage of the deconstructive process, showing the dominant view to be a constructed reality. Originality/value This is one of very few studies to have attempted a critical theoretical approach to social tagging. It offers a novel methodological approach to undertaking analysis based on poststructuralist theory.

Theme

Social tagging

0.05049397 = product of:
  0.10098794 = sum of:
    0.10098794 = product of:
      0.20197588 = sum of:
        0.20197588 = weight(_text_:tagging in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20197588 = score(doc=752,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.6778818 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Theme

Social tagging

0.048099514 = product of:
  0.09619903 = sum of:
    0.09619903 = product of:
      0.19239806 = sum of:
        0.19239806 = weight(_text_:tagging in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19239806 = score(doc=119,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.64573616 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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'.

Theme

Social tagging

0.04207831 = product of:
  0.08415662 = sum of:
    0.08415662 = product of:
      0.16831324 = sum of:
        0.16831324 = weight(_text_:tagging in 4612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16831324 = score(doc=4612,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.5649015 = fieldWeight in 4612, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The term "tagging" is widely used for the assigning of terms to information objects in user-driven websites, although a cursory examination of such websites suggests that the communicative functions undertaken by taggers are not always driven by concerns about inter-subjective informative communication. At the heart of the debate about social indexing are issues relating to meaning and interpretation. Even where the intention is to assign informative tags, there is an issue about the relationship between the modality of an information object and its subsequent interpretation in historical time. This paper tests a model of image modality using four test images, which are interpreted and tagged by a group of distance learner students at the Department of Information Studies, Aberystwyth University. The results are described, and the implications are discussed. Overall, this limited exercise suggests that the modality model might be of some use in categorizing images within an image IR system. The exercise also suggests that leaving annotation and tagging entirely to users could lead to information loss over time. Finally, the exercise suggests that developing a retrieval tool using genre and the intertextual nature of multimedia objects might lead to the construction of rich, knowledge based systems.

0.034356795 = product of:
  0.06871359 = sum of:
    0.06871359 = product of:
      0.13742718 = sum of:
        0.13742718 = weight(_text_:tagging in 296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13742718 = score(doc=296,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.4612401 = fieldWeight in 296, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Theme

Social tagging

0.024293922 = product of:
  0.048587844 = sum of:
    0.048587844 = product of:
      0.09717569 = sum of:
        0.09717569 = weight(_text_:tagging in 3541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09717569 = score(doc=3541,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.326146 = fieldWeight in 3541, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3541)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Where the institutionalised study of literature goes, knowledge organisation (KO) approaches to fictional works tend to follow. At the level of generic labelling and categorisation, theoretical conventions of the professional literary critical world appear to be adopted by the information science world, for example in the generic categorisation undertaken by the British National Bibliography. This paper, which is concerned with the epistemological assumptions underpinning fiction categorisation, explores current genre theory and argues for an approach to the understanding of genre, and ultimately the description of genre, that is based on a cultural-materialist, historical world-view. In addition, a novel framework for a genre mapping KO tool is described. Fiction information retrieval is still a fairly underdeveloped area of information science. There have been some developments, mainly in the 1980s and 1990s, which focused on user warrant as the basis for developing retrieval systems (e.g. Pejtersen 1992) but there is still space for a generic approach which can identify and describe novels at a micro-level while situating them within a broader systems view. In the current information retrieval context, any such tool, which would be developed for web use, should incorporate both informational fields and affective dimension indexing in the form of user derived tagging.

0.024293922 = product of:
  0.048587844 = sum of:
    0.048587844 = product of:
      0.09717569 = sum of:
        0.09717569 = weight(_text_:tagging in 1777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09717569 = score(doc=1777,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.326146 = fieldWeight in 1777, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1777)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this conceptual paper is to consider the possibility of designing a story-based image indexing system based on users' descriptions of images. It reports a pilot study which uses users' descriptions of two images. Design/methodology/approach - Eight interviews were undertaken to investigate storytelling in user interpretations of the images. Following this, storytelling was explored as an indexing input method. In all, 26 research subjects were asked to create stories about the images, which were then considered in relation to conventional story elements and in relation to Hidderley and Rafferty's (2005) image modality model. Findings - The results of the semi-structured interviews revealed that the majority of interpretations incorporated story elements related to setting, character, plot, literary devices, and themes. The 52 image stories included story elements identified in the first part of the project, and suggested that the image modality model is robust enough to deal with the "writerly" images used in this study. In addition, using storytelling as an input method encourages the use of verbs and connotative level responses. Originality/value - User indexing is generally based on paradigmatic approaches to concept analysis and interpretation in the form of tagging; the novelty of the current study is its exploration of syntagmatic approaches to user indexing in the form of storytelling. It is a pilot, proof of concept study, but it is hoped that it might stimulate further interest in syntagmatic approaches to user indexing.

0.010256397 = product of:
  0.020512793 = sum of:
    0.020512793 = product of:
      0.041025586 = sum of:
        0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 1445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041025586 = score(doc=1445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1445, 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=1445)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik