Search (97 results, page 1 of 5)

0.13610941 = product of:
  0.27221882 = sum of:
    0.27221882 = sum of:
      0.23803084 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.23803084 = score(doc=2650,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.79889125 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03418799 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = 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)

Abstract

There is a growing interest into how we represent and share tagging data in collaborative tagging systems. Conventional tags, meaning freely created tags that are not associated with a structured ontology, are not naturally suited for collaborative processes, due to linguistic and grammatical variations, as well as human typing errors. Additionally, tags reflect personal views of the world by individual users, and are not normalised for synonymy, morphology or any other mapping. Our view is that the conventional approach provides very limited semantic value for collaboration. Moreover, in cases where there is some semantic value, automatically sharing semantics via computer manipulations is extremely problematic. This paper explores these problems by discussing approaches for collaborative tagging activities at a semantic level, and presenting conceptual models for collaborative tagging activities and folksonomies. We present criteria for the comparison of existing tag ontologies and discuss their strengths and weaknesses in relation to these criteria.

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

Theme

Social tagging

0.10833117 = product of:
  0.21666235 = sum of:
    0.21666235 = sum of:
      0.16831324 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16831324 = score(doc=2652,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.5649015 = fieldWeight in 2652, 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=2652)
      0.048349116 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048349116 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = 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

Theme

Social tagging

0.10755379 = product of:
  0.21510758 = sum of:
    0.21510758 = product of:
      0.43021515 = sum of:
        0.43021515 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.43021515 = score(doc=2294,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.44391 = fieldWeight in 2294, 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=2294)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose: Investigate the combination of controlled and folksonomy approaches to support resource discovery in repositories and digital collections. Aim: Investigate whether use of an established controlled vocabulary can help improve social tagging for better resource discovery. Objectives: (1) Investigate indexing aspects when using only social tagging versus when using social tagging with suggestions from a controlled vocabulary; (2) Investigate above in two different contexts: tagging by readers and tagging by authors; (3) Investigate influence of only social tagging versus social tagging with a controlled vocabulary on retrieval. - Vgl.: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/projects/enhanced-tagging/.

Theme

Social tagging

0.0788182 = product of:
  0.1576364 = sum of:
    0.1576364 = sum of:
      0.11661082 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11661082 = score(doc=2595,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.39137518 = fieldWeight in 2595, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2595)
      0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041025586 = score(doc=2595,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2595, 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=2595)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Academic libraries have moved toward providing social networking features, such as tagging, in their library catalogs. To explore whether user tags can enhance access to individual literary works, the author obtained a sample of individual works of English and American literature from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries from a large academic library catalog and searched them in LibraryThing. The author compared match rates, the availability of subject headings and tags across various literary forms, and the terminology used in tags versus controlled-vocabulary headings on a subset of records. In addition, she evaluated the usefulness of available LibraryThing tags for the library catalog records that lacked subject headings. Options for utilizing the subject terms available in sources outside the local catalog also are discussed.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.06568184 = product of:
  0.13136367 = sum of:
    0.13136367 = sum of:
      0.09717569 = weight(_text_:tagging in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09717569 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.326146 = fieldWeight in 3524, 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=3524)
      0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03418799 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3524, 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=3524)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Tags (keywords freely assigned by users to describe web content) have become highly popular on Web 2.0 applications, because of the strong stimuli and easiness for users to create and describe their own content. This increase in tag popularity has led to a vast literature on tag recommendation methods. These methods aim at assisting users in the tagging process, possibly increasing the quality of the generated tags and, consequently, improving the quality of the information retrieval (IR) services that rely on tags as data sources. Regardless of the numerous and diversified previous studies on tag recommendation, to our knowledge, no previous work has summarized and organized them into a single survey article. In this article, we propose a taxonomy for tag recommendation methods, classifying them according to the target of the recommendations, their objectives, exploited data sources, and underlying techniques. Moreover, we provide a critical overview of these methods, pointing out their advantages and disadvantages. Finally, we describe the main open challenges related to the field, such as tag ambiguity, cold start, and evaluation issues.

Date

16.11.2017 13:30:22

0.06006531 = product of:
  0.12013062 = sum of:
    0.12013062 = sum of:
      0.09619903 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09619903 = score(doc=2668,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.32286808 = fieldWeight in 2668, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2668)
      0.023931593 = weight(_text_:22 in 2668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023931593 = score(doc=2668,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2668, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2668)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata is a key aspect of our evolving infrastructure for information management, social computing, and scientific collaboration. DC-2008 will focus on metadata challenges, solutions, and innovation in initiatives and activities underlying semantic and social applications. Metadata is part of the fabric of social computing, which includes the use of wikis, blogs, and tagging for collaboration and participation. Metadata also underlies the development of semantic applications, and the Semantic Web - the representation and integration of multimedia knowledge structures on the basis of semantic models. These two trends flow together in applications such as Wikipedia, where authors collectively create structured information that can be extracted and used to enhance access to and use of information sources. Recent discussion has focused on how existing bibliographic standards can be expressed as Semantic Web vocabularies to facilitate the ingration of library and cultural heritage data with other types of data. Harnessing the efforts of content providers and end-users to link, tag, edit, and describe their information in interoperable ways ("participatory metadata") is a key step towards providing knowledge environments that are scalable, self-correcting, and evolvable. DC-2008 will explore conceptual and practical issues in the development and deployment of semantic and social applications to meet the needs of specific communities of practice.

Content

Carol Jean Godby, Devon Smith, Eric Childress: Encoding Application Profiles in a Computational Model of the Crosswalk. - Maria Elisabete Catarino, Ana Alice Baptista: Relating Folksonomies with Dublin Core. - Ed Summers, Antoine Isaac, Clay Redding, Dan Krech: LCSH, SKOS and Linked Data. - Xia Lin, Jiexun Li, Xiaohua Zhou: Theme Creation for Digital Collections. - Boris Lauser, Gudrun Johannsen, Caterina Caracciolo, Willem Robert van Hage, Johannes Keizer, Philipp Mayr: Comparing Human and Automatic Thesaurus Mapping Approaches in the Agricultural Domain. - P. Bryan Heidorn, Qin Wei: Automatic Metadata Extraction From Museum Specimen Labels. - Stuart Allen Sutton, Diny Golder: Achievement Standards Network (ASN): An Application Profile for Mapping K-12 Educational Resources to Achievement Standards. - Allen H. Renear, Karen M. Wickett, Richard J. Urban, David Dubin, Sarah L. Shreeves: Collection/Item Metadata Relationships. - Seth van Hooland, Yves Bontemps, Seth Kaufman: Answering the Call for more Accountability: Applying Data Profiling to Museum Metadata. - Thomas Margaritopoulos, Merkourios Margaritopoulos, Ioannis Mavridis, Athanasios Manitsaris: A Conceptual Framework for Metadata Quality Assessment. - Miao Chen, Xiaozhong Liu, Jian Qin: Semantic Relation Extraction from Socially-Generated Tags: A Methodology for Metadata Generation. - Hak Lae Kim, Simon Scerri, John G. Breslin, Stefan Decker, Hong Gee Kim: The State of the Art in Tag Ontologies: A Semantic Model for Tagging and Folksonomies. - Martin Malmsten: Making a Library Catalogue Part of the Semantic Web. - Philipp Mayr, Vivien Petras: Building a Terminology Network for Search: The KoMoHe Project. - Michael Panzer: Cool URIs for the DDC: Towards Web-scale Accessibility of a Large Classification System. - Barbara Levergood, Stefan Farrenkopf, Elisabeth Frasnelli: The Specification of the Language of the Field and Interoperability: Cross-language Access to Catalogues and Online Libraries (CACAO)

0.05950771 = product of:
  0.11901542 = sum of:
    0.11901542 = product of:
      0.23803084 = sum of:
        0.23803084 = weight(_text_:tagging in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23803084 = score(doc=101,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.79889125 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Social tagging, hashtags, and geotags are used across a variety of platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, WordPress, Instagram) in different countries and cultures. This book, representing researchers and practitioners across different information professions, explores how social tags can link content across a variety of environments. Most studies of social tagging have tended to focus on applications like library catalogs, blogs, and social bookmarking sites. This book, in setting out a theoretical background and the use of a series of case studies, explores the role of hashtags as a form of linked data?without the complex implementation of RDF and other Semantic Web technologies.

RSWK

Linked Data / Social Tagging

Subject

Linked Data / Social Tagging

Theme

Social tagging

0.048587844 = product of:
  0.09717569 = sum of:
    0.09717569 = product of:
      0.19435138 = sum of:
        0.19435138 = weight(_text_:tagging in 745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19435138 = score(doc=745,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.652292 = fieldWeight in 745, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=745)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the increasing popularity of social tagging systems, the potential for using social tags as a source of metadata is being explored. Social tagging systems can simplify the involvement of a large number of users and improve the metadata-generation process. Current research is exploring social tagging systems as a mechanism to allow nonprofessional catalogers to participate in metadata generation. Because social tags are not from controlled vocabularies, there are issues that have to be addressed in finding quality terms to represent the content of a resource. This research explores ways to obtain a set of tags representing the resource from the tags provided by users. Two metrics are introduced. Annotation Dominance (AD) is a measure of the extent to which a tag term is agreed to by users. Cross Resources Annotation Discrimination (CRAD) is a measure of a tag's potential to classify a collection. It is designed to remove tags that are used too broadly or narrowly. Using the proposed measurements, the research selects important tags (meta-terms) and removes meaningless ones (tag noise) from the tags provided by users. To evaluate the proposed approach to find classificatory metadata candidates, we rely on expert users' relevance judgments comparing suggested tag terms and expert metadata terms. The results suggest that processing of user tags using the two measurements successfully identifies the terms that represent the topic categories of web resource content. The suggested tag terms can be further examined in various usages as semantic metadata for the resources.

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 531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19239806 = score(doc=531,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.64573616 = fieldWeight in 531, 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=531)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

KoT (Kinds of Tags) is an ongoing joint collaborative research effort with many participants worldwide, including the University of Minho, UKOLN, the University of Bologna, the Université Libre de Bruxelles and La Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. It is focused on the analysis of tags that are in common use in the practice of social tagging, with the aim of discovering how easily tags can be 'normalised' for interoperability with standard metadata environments such as the DC Metadata Terms.

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 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19239806 = score(doc=4866,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.64573616 = fieldWeight in 4866, 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=4866)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In diesem Kapitel wird die zentrale Bedeutung der Annotation von Webdokumenten bzw. von Ressourcen in einem Semantischen Web diskutiert. Es wird auf aktuelle Methoden und Techniken in diesem Gebiet eingegangen, insbesondere wird das Phänomen "Social Tagging" als zentrales Element eines "Social Semantic Webs" beleuchtet. Weiters wird der Frage nachgegangen, welchen Mehrwert "Tag Recommender" beim Annotationsvorgang bieten, sowohl aus Sicht des End-Users aber auch im Sinne eines kollaborativen Ontologieerstellungsprozesses. Schließlich wird ein Funktionsprinzip für einen semi-automatischen Tag-Recommender vorgestellt unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Anwendbarkeit in einem Corporate Semantic Web.

Theme

Social tagging

0.03401149 = product of:
  0.06802298 = sum of:
    0.06802298 = product of:
      0.13604596 = sum of:
        0.13604596 = weight(_text_:tagging in 892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13604596 = score(doc=892,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.4566044 = fieldWeight in 892, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Secondary information, e.g. MARC based bibliographic records, comprises structured data for identifying, tagging, retrieving and management of primary documents. SGML, the standard format for coding content and structure of primary documents, was introduced in 1986 as a publishing tool but is now being applied to bibliographic records. SGML now comprises standard definitions (DTD) for books, serials, articles and mathematical formulae. A simplified version (HTML) is used for Web pages. Pilot projects to develop SGML as a standard for bibliographic exchange include the Dublin Core, listing 13 descriptive elements for Internet documents; the French GRISELI programme using SGML for exchanging grey literature and US experiments on reformatting USMARC for use with SGML-based records

0.03401149 = product of:
  0.06802298 = sum of:
    0.06802298 = product of:
      0.13604596 = sum of:
        0.13604596 = weight(_text_:tagging in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13604596 = score(doc=1250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.4566044 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata has taken an a new took with the advent of XML and digital resources. XML provides a new versatile structure for tagging and packaging metadata as the rapid proliferation of digital resources demands both rapidly produced descriptive data and the encoding of more types of metadata. Two emerging standards are attempting to harness these developments for library needs. The first is the Metadata Object and Description Schema (MODS), a MARC-compatible XML schema for encoding descriptive data. The second standard is the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS), a highly flexible XML schema for packaging the descriptive metadata and various other important types of metadata needed to assure the use and preservation of digital resources.

0.03401149 = product of:
  0.06802298 = sum of:
    0.06802298 = product of:
      0.13604596 = sum of:
        0.13604596 = weight(_text_:tagging in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13604596 = score(doc=1968,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.4566044 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Theme

Social tagging

0.029152704 = product of:
  0.05830541 = sum of:
    0.05830541 = product of:
      0.11661082 = sum of:
        0.11661082 = weight(_text_:tagging in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11661082 = score(doc=3598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.39137518 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.029152704 = product of:
  0.05830541 = sum of:
    0.05830541 = product of:
      0.11661082 = sum of:
        0.11661082 = weight(_text_:tagging in 5526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11661082 = score(doc=5526,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.39137518 = fieldWeight in 5526, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5526)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the proliferation of digitized resources accessible internationally via Internet and Intranet knowledge bases and a pressing need to develop more sophisticated tools for the identification and retrieval of electronic resources, both general purpose and domain-specific metadata schemes have assumed a particular prominence. This has resulted in a growing number of online repositories that must be accessed using terminology that would be considered unfamiliar to most searchers. Assuming that a natural language "gateway" requiring no prior knowledge of specific metadata tagging could facilitate cross-repository searching, end-users were engaged in focus group testing of a "namespace" of common categories derived from nine metadata schemes. Findings and their implications within an international context are presented.

0.029152704 = product of:
  0.05830541 = sum of:
    0.05830541 = product of:
      0.11661082 = sum of:
        0.11661082 = weight(_text_:tagging in 5574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11661082 = score(doc=5574,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.39137518 = fieldWeight in 5574, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5574)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Twitter hashtag is a unique tagging format linking Tweets to user-defined concepts. The aim of the paper is to describe various applications of Twitter hashtags and to determine the functional characteristics of each application. Twitter hashtags can assist in archiving twitter content, provide different visual representations of tweets, and permit grouping by categories and facets. This study seeks to examine the trends in Twitter hashtag features and how these may be applied as enhancements for next-generation library catalogues. For this purpose, Taylor's value-added model is used as an analytical framework. The morphological box developed by Zwicky is used to synthesize functionalities of Twitter hashtag applications. And finally, included are recommendations for the design of hashtag-based value-added dimensions for future library catalogues.

0.029009473 = product of:
  0.058018945 = sum of:
    0.058018945 = product of:
      0.11603789 = sum of:
        0.11603789 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11603789 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 5743, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5743)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 3.2002 19:45:22

Source

Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219

0.027350392 = product of:
  0.054700784 = sum of:
    0.054700784 = product of:
      0.10940157 = sum of:
        0.10940157 = weight(_text_:22 in 4899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10940157 = score(doc=4899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4899, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16. 7.2000 20:58:22

0.027350392 = product of:
  0.054700784 = sum of:
    0.054700784 = product of:
      0.10940157 = sum of:
        0.10940157 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10940157 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.023931593 = product of:
  0.047863185 = sum of:
    0.047863185 = product of:
      0.09572637 = sum of:
        0.09572637 = weight(_text_:22 in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09572637 = score(doc=4407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4407, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

28. 3.2002 9:22:34