February 16th, 2010
http://mstrohm.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/why-do-users-tag-detecting-user-motivation-in-tagging-systems/
“If we can identify the functions of extreme user motivation “(ideal” Categorizers and Describers), and position real user motivation between those extremes, we might be able to come up with scores indicative of user motivation in tagging systems – e.g. a user might be 80% Categorizer, and 20% Describer. Having such a model could help exploring the implications of different user motivations outlined above. ”
Interessanterweise kommen bei meinen Ergebnissen heraus, dass die Benutzer besonders beim Anlegen auf “einfache” Methoden zum Annotieren setzten, die kurze Beschreibungen ermöglichen. Beim Abrufen von Annotationen (wenn der original Text gelesen wird) werden einfach Text Kommentare als Annotation bevorzugt. Einzig und alleine für die Suche könnten genauere Kategorien sinnvoll sein.
Tags: annotation, tag, user
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
January 19th, 2010
Yesterday we visited the Austrian National Library (to be more precise the “Bildarchiv”), where Max Kaiser and his colleges gave us overview regarding their research activities. We learned many interesting things, how Libraries structure and organize their Data and Metadata. They also provided us with insights about their Web Archive projects.
Slides of the presentation of Max Kaiser (http://www.slideshare.net/maxkaiser/europeana-status-metadaten-semantische-interoperabilitt )
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
December 30th, 2009
December 25th is a date to celebrate not because it is the disputed birthday of the “son of God” but because it is the actual birthday of one of the world’s greatest men.
Sir Isaac Newton
http://religurd.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/newton-day/
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
December 15th, 2009
Defining access to or rights of a user, isn’t the easiest thing. Beside some minor problems two main problems (in my opinion) still need to be solved:
1) A user needs an easy to use interface to define his rights
2) A user needs to be informed adequate about the impact of the rights he is about to change.
A really nice solution for the problem domain of 1) can be found by Quasthoff ([1],[2],[3]) sowie Müller Prove [4] und Passant [5]
[1] Enlightenment 2.0: Facilitating User Control in Distributed Collaborative Applications
[2] Who Reads and Writes the Social Web? A Security Architecture for Web 2.0 Applications
[3] Why HTTPS Is Not Enough – A Signature-Based Architecture for Trusted Content on the Social Web.
[4] Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging
[5] Enabling Trust and Privacy on the Social Web
Tags: rights, tag, vocalbulary
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
December 3rd, 2009
Tags: oai-pmh, ore
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
October 29th, 2009
Made some first experiments with Co-Annotea on my WinXP Machine. I experienced some problems annotating a page (the open button didn’t work) so I had to load the page using the open – Menue. Whenever I tried to create an annotation the software (version 1.02515.24021) crashed. Hope to report better results soon.
http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~eresearch/projects/dart/outcomes/coannotea.php
Tags: annotation, tag
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
October 28th, 2009
Why RDFa will fail against Microfomats: http://blog.foolip.org/2009/08/23/microformats-vs-rdfa-vs-microdata/
Nice but not at all true abstract about RDFa vs Microfomats by Tomberg: http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-506/tomberg.pdf
Table 1. Summative comparison of Microformats and RDFa. Better features marked with gray background.
|
Microformats |
RDFa |
| Technological properties |
|
|
| Can be applied to |
HTML, XHTML |
In current state for XHTML 2 and limited for XHTML 1 |
| Have useful implementations for end user today |
Yes, different add-ons for browsers allow that |
Not very useful for end user directly |
| Can be used in mash-ups |
Yes |
Yes |
| Practice using for semantic indexing examples |
Google and Yahoo now indexing such microformats as hCard and hReview |
Google, US Government Website and Slideshare use RDFa |
| Standardized |
No |
Yes |
| Drawbacks |
It is very difficult to use one limited dictionary for all purposes. Because of absence of standards support from developers is more enthusiastic than industrial |
Because of finishing of XHTML2 development the perspectives of RDFa are very unclear at the current moment |
| Semantic properties |
|
|
| Vocabulary |
Only one |
Unlimited amount is possible |
| Vocabulary can be extended |
Yes, but only through community |
Yes, freely |
| Interoperability level |
High |
Possible only if common vocabularies are used |
| Possibilities to add semantic value to data |
Average |
High |
| Application for educational needs |
|
|
| Possible semantic data use |
Course’s membership via hCard Learner and Teacher information via hCard Members relations via XFN Course events via hCalendar |
Can use any semantic vocabulary that suitable for course description. |
Tags: Microformat, RDFa
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
