Search (3932 results, page 2 of 197)

  1. Derntl, M.; Hampel, T.; Motschnig, R.; Pitner, T.: Social Tagging und Inclusive Universal Access (2008) 0.10 
    0.0966886 = product of:
  0.1933772 = sum of:
    0.1933772 = product of:
      0.3867544 = sum of:
        0.3867544 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3867544 = score(doc=2864,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.2980448 = fieldWeight in 2864, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2864)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Der vorliegende Artikel beleuchtet und bewertet Social Tagging als aktuelles Phänomen des Web 2.0 im Kontext bekannter Techniken der semantischen Datenorganisation. Tagging wird in einen Raum verwandter Ordnungs- und Strukturierungsansätze eingeordnet, um die fundamentalen Grundlagen des Social Tagging zu identifizieren und zuzuweisen. Dabei wird Tagging anhand des Inclusive Universal Access Paradigmas bewertet, das technische als auch menschlich-soziale Kriterien für die inklusive und barrierefreie Bereitstellung und Nutzung von Diensten definiert. Anhand dieser Bewertung werden fundamentale Prinzipien des "Inclusive Social Tagging" hergeleitet, die der Charakterisierung und Bewertung gängiger Tagging-Funktionalitäten in verbreiteten Web-2.0-Diensten dienen. Aus der Bewertung werden insbesondere Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten von Social Tagging und unterstützenden Diensten erkennbar.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  2. Voß, J.: Vom Social Tagging zum Semantic Tagging (2008) 0.10 
    0.09619903 = product of:
  0.19239806 = sum of:
    0.19239806 = product of:
      0.3847961 = sum of:
        0.3847961 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3847961 = score(doc=2884,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.2914723 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  3. Tschetschonig, K.; Ladengruber, R.; Hampel, T.; Schulte, J.: Kollaborative Tagging-Systeme im Electronic Commerce (2008) 0.10 
    0.09619903 = product of:
  0.19239806 = sum of:
    0.19239806 = product of:
      0.3847961 = sum of:
        0.3847961 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3847961 = score(doc=2891,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.2914723 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Social-Tagging-Systeme bieten eine Vielzahl an Vorteilen gegenüber traditionellen und zurzeit eingesetzten Systemen und werden besonders in nicht-kommerziellen Web-2.0-Anwendungen erfolgreich verwendet. Diese Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit den Vor- und Nachteilen von Social Tagging für kollaborative Systeme des Electronic Commerce und stellt einige Beispiele aus der Praxis vor. Es gibt nur wenige Anwendungen aus dem Bereich des Electronic Commerce, die Social Tagging erfolgreich als kritischen Teil ihrer Systeme einsetzen. Deshalb wird das Potenzial von Tagging-Systemen beleuchtet, um eine fundierte Basis für neue Entwicklungen im Geschäftsbereich zu schaffen.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  4. Simon, D.: Anreicherung bibliothekarischer Titeldaten durch Tagging : Möglichkeiten und Probleme (2007) 0.09 
    0.08998595 = product of:
  0.1799719 = sum of:
    0.1799719 = product of:
      0.3599438 = sum of:
        0.3599438 = weight(_text_:tagging in 530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3599438 = score(doc=530,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.2080618 = fieldWeight in 530, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=530)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  5. Ding, Y.; Jacob, E.K.; Zhang, Z.; Foo, S.; Yan, E.; George, N.L.; Guo, L.: Perspectives on social tagging (2009) 0.09 
    0.08745811 = product of:
  0.17491622 = sum of:
    0.17491622 = product of:
      0.34983245 = sum of:
        0.34983245 = weight(_text_:tagging in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.34983245 = score(doc=3290,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.1741256 = fieldWeight in 3290, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Social tagging is one of the major phenomena transforming the World Wide Web from a static platform into an actively shared information space. This paper addresses various aspects of social tagging, including different views on the nature of social tagging, how to make use of social tags, and how to bridge social tagging with other Web functionalities; it discusses the use of facets to facilitate browsing and searching of tagging data; and it presents an analogy between bibliometrics and tagometrics, arguing that established bibliometric methodologies can be applied to analyze tagging behavior on the Web. Based on the Upper Tag Ontology (UTO), a Web crawler was built to harvest tag data from Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube in September 2007. In total, 1.8 million objects, including bookmarks, photos, and videos, 3.1 million taggers, and 12.1 million tags were collected and analyzed. Some tagging patterns and variations are identified and discussed.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  6. Lee, Y.Y.; Yang, S.Q.: Folksonomies as subject access : a survey of tagging in library online catalogs and discovery layers (2012) 0.09 
    0.08745811 = product of:
  0.17491622 = sum of:
    0.17491622 = product of:
      0.34983245 = sum of:
        0.34983245 = weight(_text_:tagging in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.34983245 = score(doc=309,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.1741256 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper describes a survey on how system vendors and libraries handled tagging in OPACs and discovery layers. Tags are user added subject metadata, also called folksonomies. This survey also investigated user behavior when they face the possibility to tag. The findings indicate that legacy/classic systems have no tagging capability. About 47% of the discovery tools provide tagging function. About 49% of the libraries that have a system with tagging capability have turned the tagging function on in their OPACs and discovery tools. Only 40% of the libraries that turned tagging on actually utilized user added subject metadata as access point to collections. Academic library users are less active in tagging than public library users.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  7. Hänger, C.: Good tags or bad tags? : Tagging im Kontext der bibliothekarischen Sacherschließung (2008) 0.09 
    0.08691658 = product of:
  0.17383316 = sum of:
    0.17383316 = product of:
      0.34766632 = sum of:
        0.34766632 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.34766632 = score(doc=2886,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.1668555 = fieldWeight in 2886, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2886)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Der vorliegende Artikel beleuchtet die Perspektiven und Grenzen der Einführung von partizipatorischen Elementen in die traditionelle bibliothekarische Sacherschließung. Die Universitätsbibliothek Mannheim untersucht im vorgestellten Projekt, welchen Beitrag Collaborative Tagging für die inhaltliche Erschließung von bisher nicht erschlossenen und daher der Nutzung kaum zugänglichen Dokumenten, beispielsweise auf Volltextservern oder in elektronischen Zeitschriften, leisten kann.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  8. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.09 
    0.085807584 = product of:
  0.17161517 = sum of:
    0.17161517 = sum of:
      0.13742718 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13742718 = score(doc=2648,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.4612401 = fieldWeight in 2648, 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=2648)
      0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03418799 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    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
  9. Srinivasan, R.; Boast, R.; Becvar, K.M.; Furner, J.: Blobgects : digital museum catalogs and diverse user communities (2009) 0.09 
    0.085807584 = product of:
  0.17161517 = sum of:
    0.17161517 = sum of:
      0.13742718 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13742718 = score(doc=2754,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.4612401 = fieldWeight in 2754, 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=2754)
      0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 2754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03418799 = score(doc=2754,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2754, 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=2754)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article presents an exploratory study of Blobgects, an experimental interface for an online museum catalog that enables social tagging and blogging activity around a set of cultural heritage objects held by a preeminent museum of anthropology and archaeology. This study attempts to understand not just whether social tagging and commenting about these objects is useful but rather whose tags and voices matter in presenting different expert perspectives around digital museum objects. Based on an empirical comparison between two different user groups (Canadian Inuit high-school students and museum studies students in the United States), we found that merely adding the ability to tag and comment to the museum's catalog does not sufficiently allow users to learn about or engage with the objects represented by catalog entries. Rather, the specialist language of the catalog provides too little contextualization for users to enter into the sort of dialog that proponents of Web 2.0 technologies promise. Overall, we propose a more nuanced application of Web 2.0 technologies within museums - one which provides a contextual basis that gives users a starting point for engagement and permits users to make sense of objects in relation to their own needs, uses, and understandings.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:52:32
  10. Mahesh, K.: Highly expressive tagging for knowledge organization in the 21st century (2014) 0.09 
    0.085807584 = product of:
  0.17161517 = sum of:
    0.17161517 = sum of:
      0.13742718 = weight(_text_:tagging in 1434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13742718 = score(doc=1434,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.4612401 = fieldWeight in 1434, 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=1434)
      0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 1434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03418799 = score(doc=1434,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1434, 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=1434)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Knowledge organization of large-scale content on the Web requires substantial amounts of semantic metadata that is expensive to generate manually. Recent developments in Web technologies have enabled any user to tag documents and other forms of content thereby generating metadata that could help organize knowledge. However, merely adding one or more tags to a document is highly inadequate to capture the aboutness of the document and thereby to support powerful semantic functions such as automatic classification, question answering or true semantic search and retrieval. This is true even when the tags used are labels from a well-designed classification system such as a thesaurus or taxonomy. There is a strong need to develop a semantic tagging mechanism with sufficient expressive power to capture the aboutness of each part of a document or dataset or multimedia content in order to enable applications that can benefit from knowledge organization on the Web. This article proposes a highly expressive mechanism of using ontology snippets as semantic tags that map portions of a document or a part of a dataset or a segment of a multimedia content to concepts and relations in an ontology of the domain(s) of interest.
    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
  11. Macgregor, G.; McCulloch, E.: Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool (2006) 0.08 
    0.08415662 = product of:
  0.16831324 = sum of:
    0.16831324 = product of:
      0.33662647 = sum of:
        0.33662647 = weight(_text_:tagging in 764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.33662647 = score(doc=764,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.129803 = fieldWeight in 764, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to provide an overview of the collaborative tagging phenomenon and explore some of the reasons for its emergence. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reviews the related literature and discusses some of the problems associated with, and the potential of, collaborative tagging approaches for knowledge organisation and general resource discovery. A definition of controlled vocabularies is proposed and used to assess the efficacy of collaborative tagging. An exposition of the collaborative tagging model is provided and a review of the major contributions to the tagging literature is presented. Findings - There are numerous difficulties with collaborative tagging systems (e.g. low precision, lack of collocation, etc.) that originate from the absence of properties that characterise controlled vocabularies. However, such systems can not be dismissed. Librarians and information professionals have lessons to learn from the interactive and social aspects exemplified by collaborative tagging systems, as well as their success in engaging users with information management. The future co-existence of controlled vocabularies and collaborative tagging is predicted, with each appropriate for use within distinct information contexts: formal and informal. Research limitations/implications - Librarians and information professional researchers should be playing a leading role in research aimed at assessing the efficacy of collaborative tagging in relation to information storage, organisation, and retrieval, and to influence the future development of collaborative tagging systems. Practical implications - The paper indicates clear areas where digital libraries and repositories could innovate in order to better engage users with information. Originality/value - At time of writing there were no literature reviews summarising the main contributions to the collaborative tagging research or debate.
  12. Fachsystematik Bremen nebst Schlüssel 1970 ff. (1970 ff) 0.08 
    0.08388997 = sum of:
  0.066795975 = product of:
    0.20038791 = sum of:
      0.20038791 = weight(_text_:3a in 3577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20038791 = score(doc=3577,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.4278608 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 3577, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3577)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.017093996 = product of:
    0.03418799 = sum of:
      0.03418799 = weight(_text_:22 in 3577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03418799 = score(doc=3577,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3577, 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=3577)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    1. Agrarwissenschaften 1981. - 3. Allgemeine Geographie 2.1972. - 3a. Allgemeine Naturwissenschaften 1.1973. - 4. Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft 2.1971. - 6. Allgemeines. 5.1983. - 7. Anglistik 3.1976. - 8. Astronomie, Geodäsie 4.1977. - 12. bio Biologie, bcp Biochemie-Biophysik, bot Botanik, zoo Zoologie 1981. - 13. Bremensien 3.1983. - 13a. Buch- und Bibliothekswesen 3.1975. - 14. Chemie 4.1977. - 14a. Elektrotechnik 1974. - 15 Ethnologie 2.1976. - 16,1. Geowissenschaften. Sachteil 3.1977. - 16,2. Geowissenschaften. Regionaler Teil 3.1977. - 17. Germanistik 6.1984. - 17a,1. Geschichte. Teilsystematik hil. - 17a,2. Geschichte. Teilsystematik his Neuere Geschichte. - 17a,3. Geschichte. Teilsystematik hit Neueste Geschichte. - 18. Humanbiologie 2.1983. - 19. Ingenieurwissenschaften 1974. - 20. siehe 14a. - 21. klassische Philologie 3.1977. - 22. Klinische Medizin 1975. - 23. Kunstgeschichte 2.1971. - 24. Kybernetik. 2.1975. - 25. Mathematik 3.1974. - 26. Medizin 1976. - 26a. Militärwissenschaft 1985. - 27. Musikwissenschaft 1978. - 27a. Noten 2.1974. - 28. Ozeanographie 3.1977. -29. Pädagogik 8.1985. - 30. Philosphie 3.1974. - 31. Physik 3.1974. - 33. Politik, Politische Wissenschaft, Sozialwissenschaft. Soziologie. Länderschlüssel. Register 1981. - 34. Psychologie 2.1972. - 35. Publizistik und Kommunikationswissenschaft 1985. - 36. Rechtswissenschaften 1986. - 37. Regionale Geograpgie 3.1975. - 37a. Religionswissenschaft 1970. - 38. Romanistik 3.1976. - 39. Skandinavistik 4.1985. - 40. Slavistik 1977. - 40a. Sonstige Sprachen und Literaturen 1973. - 43. Sport 4.1983. - 44. Theaterwissenschaft 1985. - 45. Theologie 2.1976. - 45a. Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Archäologie 1970. - 47. Volkskunde 1976. - 47a. Wirtschaftswissenschaften 1971 // Schlüssel: 1. Länderschlüssel 1971. - 2. Formenschlüssel (Kurzform) 1974. - 3. Personenschlüssel Literatur 5. Fassung 1968
  13. Schiefner, M.: Social Tagging in der universitären Lehre (2008) 0.08 
    0.0833108 = product of:
  0.1666216 = sum of:
    0.1666216 = product of:
      0.3332432 = sum of:
        0.3332432 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3332432 = score(doc=2887,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.1184478 = fieldWeight in 2887, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2887)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    "Social Tagging" bezeichnet das gemeinsame Verwalten und Verschlagworten von Ressourcen und wird vor allem durch Dienste wie del.icio.us oder bibsonomy immer beliebter. Auch in Blogs wird mittlerweile getaggt. Der folgende Beitrag soll die Frage klären: Können Prozesse wie "wisdom of the crowd" und die Folksonomy mit strukturiert und hierarchisch arbeitenden Hochschulen in Verbindung gebracht werden? Obwohl Tagging im Kern verschiedene Dienste und Aufgaben an Hochschulen betrifft, bleibt die Frage bislang unbeantwortet, ob und wie dies an Hochschulen, vor allem im Prozess des Lehrens und Lernens integriert und nutzbar gemacht werden kann.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  14. Blank, M.; Bopp, T.; Hampel, T.; Schulte, J.: Social Tagging = Soziale Suche? (2008) 0.08 
    0.0833108 = product of:
  0.1666216 = sum of:
    0.1666216 = product of:
      0.3332432 = sum of:
        0.3332432 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3332432 = score(doc=2888,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.1184478 = fieldWeight in 2888, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2888)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Der effiziente Zugang zu Informationen und Wissen spielt in allen Bereichen unserer heutigen Informationsgesellschaft eine Schlüsselrolle. Aufgrund der immer stärker zunehmenden digitalen Informationsflut ist es schwieriger denn je, aus all den zur Verfügung stehenden Ressourcen gerade die interessanten und benötigten Quellen herauszufiltern. Aus diesem Grund gehört eine Suchfunktion zur Grund( raussetzung von Informationssystemen verschiedenster Art. Dieser Artikel he schreibt die Einbettung von Social Tagging in kooperative Informationssysteme und zeigt verschiedene Synergieeffekte auf, die bei der Verzahnung einer klassi schen Suche im Zusammenspiel mit Tagging entstehen.
    Footnote
    Beitrag der Tagung "Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation" am 21.-22.02.2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen.
    Source
    Good tags - bad tags: Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation. Hrsg.: B. Gaiser, u.a
    Theme
    Social tagging
  15. Heller, L.: Ordnung des Thesaurus, Anarchie des Taggens : im Bibliothekskatalog glücklich vereint? (2011) 0.08 
    0.082456306 = product of:
  0.16491261 = sum of:
    0.16491261 = product of:
      0.32982522 = sum of:
        0.32982522 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.32982522 = score(doc=2957,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.1069763 = fieldWeight in 2957, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2957)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Neue Webdienste vereinen die Vorteile von Thesauri und durch privates "Tagging" gewonnenen "Ego-Daten".
    Theme
    Social tagging
  16. Choi, Y.: ¬A complete assessment of tagging quality : a consolidated methodology (2015) 0.08 
    0.082456306 = product of:
  0.16491261 = sum of:
    0.16491261 = product of:
      0.32982522 = sum of:
        0.32982522 = weight(_text_:tagging in 1730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.32982522 = score(doc=1730,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.1069763 = fieldWeight in 1730, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1730)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper presents a methodological discussion of a study of tagging quality in subject indexing. The data analysis in the study was divided into 3 phases: analysis of indexing consistency, analysis of tagging effectiveness, and analysis of the semantic values of tags. To analyze indexing consistency, this study employed the vector space model-based indexing consistency measures. An analysis of tagging effectiveness with tagging exhaustivity and tag specificity was conducted to ameliorate the drawbacks of consistency analysis based on only the quantitative measures of vocabulary matching. To further investigate the semantic values of tags at various levels of specificity, a latent semantic analysis (LSA) was conducted. To test statistical significance for the relation between tag specificity and semantic quality, correlation analysis was conducted. This research demonstrates the potential of tags for web document indexing with a complete assessment of tagging quality and provides a basis for further study of the strengths and limitations of tagging.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  17. Kipp, M.E.; Beak, J.; Choi, I.: Motivations and intentions of flickr users in enriching flick records for Library of Congress photos (2017) 0.08 
    0.080573834 = product of:
  0.16114767 = sum of:
    0.16114767 = product of:
      0.32229534 = sum of:
        0.32229534 = weight(_text_:tagging in 3828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.32229534 = score(doc=3828,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.081704 = fieldWeight in 3828, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3828)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study is to understand users' motivations and intentions in the use of institutional collections on social tagging sites. Previous social tagging studies have collected social tagging data and analyzed how tagging functions as a tool to organize and retrieve information. Many studies focused on the patterns of tagging rather than the users' perspectives. To provide a more comprehensive picture of users' social tagging activities in institutional collections, and how this compares to social tagging in a more personal context, we collected data from social tagging users by surveying 7,563 participants in the Library of Congress's Flickr Collection. We asked users to describe their motivations for activities within the LC Flickr Collection in their own words using open-ended questions. As a result, we identified 11 motivations using a bottom-up, open-coding approach: affective reactions, opinion on photo, interest in subject, contribution to description, knowledge sharing, improving findability, social network, appreciation, personal use, and personal relationship. Our study revealed that affective or emotional reactions play a critical role in the use of social tagging of institutional collections by comparing our findings to existing frameworks for tagging motivations. We also examined the relationships between participants' occupations and our 11 motivations.
    Theme
    Social tagging
  18. Verwer, K.: Freiheit und Verantwortung bei Hans Jonas (2011) 0.08 
    0.080155164 = product of:
  0.16031033 = sum of:
    0.16031033 = product of:
      0.48093098 = sum of:
        0.48093098 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.48093098 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4278608 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046712 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.
  19. Morrison, P.J.: Tagging and searching : search retrieval effectiveness of folksonomies on the World Wide Web (2008) 0.08 
    0.0788182 = product of:
  0.1576364 = sum of:
    0.1576364 = sum of:
      0.11661082 = weight(_text_:tagging in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11661082 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.39137518 = fieldWeight in 2109, 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=2109)
      0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 2109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041025586 = score(doc=2109,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = 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)
    Date
    1. 8.2008 12:39:22
  20. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.08 
    0.0788182 = product of:
  0.1576364 = sum of:
    0.1576364 = sum of:
      0.11661082 = weight(_text_:tagging in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11661082 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2979515 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.39137518 = fieldWeight in 3387, 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=3387)
      0.041025586 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041025586 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672725 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046712 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, 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=3387)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
    Theme
    Social tagging

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 3275
  • m 379
  • el 187
  • s 154
  • x 40
  • b 39
  • i 23
  • r 18
  • ? 8
  • p 4
  • d 3
  • n 3
  • u 2
  • z 2
  • au 1
  • h 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications