Julie Diana on 2009-10-08
Classification uses a scheme, where as categorization is more ad hoc.
This link has been bookmarked by 293 people . It was first bookmarked on 02 Mar 2006, by Jeff dalton.
-
04 Dec 09
-
Its uncontrolled nature is fundamentally chaotic,
suffers from problems of imprecision and ambiguity that well
developed controlled vocabularies and name authorities
effectively ameliorate. Conversely, systems employing free-form
tagging that are encouraging users to organize information in
their own ways are supremely responsive to user needs and
vocabularies, and involve the users of information actively in
the organizational system.
-
-
21 Nov 09
Sarah TarpleyDescribes the use of tags and the development of folksonomies in various social sites.
-
04 Nov 09
-
Metadata - data about data - allows systems to
collocate related information, and helps users find relevant
information. -
author
creation - 29 more annotations...
-
-
professional creation
-
The apparatus and tools built
around professional cataloging systems are generally too
complicated for anyone without specialized training and
knowledge. -
a third approach: user-created
metadata, where users of the documents and media create metadata
for their own individual use that is also shared throughout a
community. -
Metadata is often characterized as “data about data.”
Metadata is information, often highly structured, about
documents, books, articles, photographs, or other items that is
designed to support specific functions. -
While professionally created metadata are often considered of
high quality, it is costly in terms of time and effort to
produce. This makes it very difficult to scale and keep up with
the vast amounts of new content being produced, especially in
new mediums like the World Wide Web. -
but both approaches share a basic problem: the intended and
unintended eventual users of the information are disconnected
from the process. -
Recommendation systems, and those that employ
collaborative filtering are another form of leveraging implicit
user created metadata. (Lieberman, 2002 -
One form of explicit user created metadata was popularized in
the late 1990’s with link-focused websites called weblogs (Blood
2000) -
“a social bookmarks manager. It allows you to easily
add sites you like to your personal collection of links, to
categorize those sites with keywords, and to share your
collection not only between your own browsers and machines, but
also with others” (Schachter, 2004) -
“folksonomy” by
Thomas Vander Wal in a discussion on an information architecture
mailing list (Smith, 2004). It is a combination of “folk” and
“taxonomy.” -
Overall, although the term “classification” is often used in
relation to these systems, and has been used in this paper, what
is going on is more like “categorization.” Categorization is
generally less rigorous and boundaries are less clear. -
Information
seeking behavior varies based on context. -
There is no synonym control in the
system. This leads to tags that seemingly have similar
intended meanings, like “mac,” “macintosh,” and “apple” all
being used to describe materials related to Apple Macintosh
computers. -
The first is
serendipity. While the controlled vocabulary issues
discussed above may hamper findability, browsing the system
and its interlinked related tag sets is wonderful for
finding things unexpectedly in a general area. -
There is a fundamental difference in the activities of
browsing to find interesting content, as opposed to direct
searching to find relevant documents in a query -
Perhaps the most important strength
of a folksonomy is that it directly reflects the vocabulary
of users. -
(Buckland, 1999).
-
a folksonomy represents a fundamental shift in that
it is derived not from professionals or content creators,
but from the users of information and documents -
“Metadata for the Masses,” Peter
Merholz -
(Merholz, 2004)
-
Merholz recommends using a folksonomy as the start of
professionally designed controlled vocabularies -
“ethnoclassification,” which is what he uses in his article,
and there is no mention of “folksonomy” to be
found. Ethnoclassification is also inaccurate, because as
discussed, what is happening is quite unlike classification
and far more like categorization -
The problem is that while the disparate user
vocabularies and terms enable some very interesting browsing
and finding, the sheer multiplicity of terms and
vocabularies may overwhelm the content with noisy metadata
that is not useful or relevant to a user. -
The overall costs for users of the system in terms of
time and effort are far lower than systems that rely on complex
hierarchal classification and categorization schemes -
“Aside: I think the lack of hierarchy, synonym
control and semantic precision are precisely why it
works. Free typing loose associations is just a lot easier
than making a decision about the degree of match to a
pre-defined category (especially hierarchical ones). It’s like
90% of the value of a ‘proper’ taxonomy but 10 times simpler.”
(Butterfield, 2004) -
Jon Udell
(2004) argues that the idea of abandoning taxonomy in favor of
lists of keywords is not new, and that the fundamental
difference in these systems is feedback. -
But the real power emerges when
you expand the scope to include all items, from all users,
that match your tag. Again, that view might not be what you
expected. In that case, you can adapt to the group norm, keep
your tag in a bid to influence the group norm, or both.”
(Udell, 2004) -
A folksonomy lowers the barriers to cooperation. Groups of
users do not have to agree on a hierarchy of tags or detailed
taxonomy, they only need to agree, in a general sense, on the
“meaning” of a tag enough to label similar material with terms
for there to be cooperation and shared value. -
A folksonomy represents simultaneously
some of the best and worst in the organization of
information. Its uncontrolled nature is fundamentally chaotic,
suffers from problems of imprecision and ambiguity that well
developed controlled vocabularies and name authorities
effectively ameliorate. Conversely, systems employing free-form
tagging that are encouraging users to organize information in
their own ways are supremely responsive to user needs and
vocabularies, and involve the users of information actively in
the organizational system. Overall, transforming the creation
of explicit metadata for resources from an isolated,
professional activity into a shared, communicative activity by
users is an important development that should be explored and
considered for future systems development.
-
-
-
20 Oct 09
Yuichi Tanaka"In addition to this structural difference, the context of the use in these systems is not just one of personal organization, but of communication and sharing. The near instant feedback in these systems leads to a communicative nature of tag use."
-
16 Oct 09
-
08 Oct 09
-
Merholz does not use the term “folksonomy.” He has
written on his personal web site that the term is inaccurate
due to its derivation from “taxonomy,” which he argues tend
towards hierarchy and control. (Merholz, 2004) (See also
Taylor, 2004, for discussions of problems and disputes with
the term “taxonomy.”) Merholz prefers the term
“ethnoclassification,” which is what he uses in his article,
and there is no mention of “folksonomy” to be
found. Ethnoclassification is also inaccurate, because as
discussed, what is happening is quite unlike classification
and far more like categorization. -
-
-
06 Oct 09
-
01 Oct 09
-
28 Sep 09
-
The organic system of organization
developing in Delicious and Flickr was called a “folksonomy” by
Thomas Vander Wal in a discussion on an information architecture
mailing list (Smith, 2004). It is a combination of “folk” and
“taxonomy.”
An important aspect of a folksonomy is that is comprised of
terms in a flat namespace: that is, there is no hierarchy, and
no directly specified parent-child or sibling relationships
between these terms. There are, however, automatically
generated “related” tags, which cluster tags based on common
URLs. This is unlike formal taxonomies and classification
schemes where there are multiple kind of explicit relationships
between terms. These relationships include things like broader,
narrower, as well as related terms. These folksonomies are
simply the set of terms that a group of users tagged content
with, they are not a predetermined set of classification terms
or labels.
-
-
27 Sep 09
-
13 Sep 09
-
17 Jul 09
-
Metadata - data about data - allows systems to
collocate related information, and helps users find relevant
information -
grassroots community classification of digital
assets - 19 more annotations...
-
-
An important aspect of a folksonomy is that is comprised of
terms in a flat namespace: that is, there is no hierarchy, and
no directly specified parent-child or sibling relationships
between these terms. -
although the term “classification” is often used in
relation to these systems, and has been used in this paper, what
is going on is more like “categorization.” Categorization is
generally less rigorous and boundaries are less clear. It is
based more on a synthesis of similarity than a systematic
arrangement of materials -
Most importantly, each
document can have many terms associated with it. -
Ambiguity of the tags can emerge as users apply
the same tag in different ways. At the opposite end of the
spectrum, the lack of synonym control can lead to different
tags being used for the same concept, precluding
collocation.-
Sharon Elin on 2009-07-17
Conventions are helpful! In order to share tags and use them efficiently, tagging conventions should be decided upon by users. (1) uppercase or lowercase? (2) How to join multiple-worded tags? For example, to tag a 2-word category such as "computer repair" one should decide whether to use an underscore, a period, or a dash between the words since a space will not keep the words paired. Once conventions are decided upon, all users who are sharing sources should tag items in the same way.
-
-
As an uncontrolled vocabulary that is shared across an
entire system, the terms in a folksonomy have inherent
ambiguity as different users apply terms to documents in
different ways -
These are all “filtering,” but in very different
senses. Using water filters to purify vodka is a very
different subject than Bayesian statistical analysis. -
Acronyms present another area of potential ambiguity that
are often dealt with effectively in controlled
vocabularies -
Spaces, Multiple Words
-
synonym control
-
Plural vs. singular
-
Browsing vs. Finding
-
serendipity
-
It is
similar to the difference between exploring a problem space
to formulate questions, as opposed to actually looking for
answers to specifically formulated questions. -
Desire lines are the foot-worn paths that
sometimes appear in a landscape over time. Merholz notes, “A
smart landscape designer will let wanderers create paths
through use, and then pave the emerging walkways, ensuring
optimal utility. Ethnoclassification systems can similarly
‘emerge.’ Once you have a preliminary system in place, you
can use the most common tags to develop a controlled
vocabulary that truly speaks the users’ language.” -
communicative nature of tag use.
-
an ad-hoc set of
keywords enables users — not just professionals — without
any training or previous knowledge to participate in the
system immediately. Additionally, participating is far easier
in terms of time, effort and cognitive costs. -
loose associations
-
The referential and meta nature of the images
continues as users took pictures of images on Flickr,
etc. Although this is a playful example, it is a use of tags
as communicative tool. Only by tagging their photograph with
“sometaithurts” could a user of the system join the
photographic conversation. Conversely, the only way to follow
the conversation was through the systems automated collocating
of like tagged items. -
flicktion
-
-
-
16 Jul 09
-
11 Jun 09
-
07 Jun 09
-
24 May 09
-
There is a fundamental difference in the activities of
browsing to find interesting content, as opposed to direct
searching to find relevant documents in a query. It is
similar to the difference between exploring a problem space
to formulate questions, as opposed to actually looking for
answers to specifically formulated questions -
Merholz does not use the term “folksonomy.” He has
written on his personal web site that the term is inaccurate
due to its derivation from “taxonomy,” which he argues tend
towards hierarchy and control. (Merholz, 2004) (See also
Taylor, 2004, for discussions of problems and disputes with
the term “taxonomy.”) Merholz prefers the term
“ethnoclassification,” which is what he uses in his article,
and there is no mention of “folksonomy” to be
found. Ethnoclassification is also inaccurate, because as
discussed, what is happening is quite unlike classification
and far more like categorization.-
Paula Hay on 2009-05-24
What is the difference between "classification" and "categorization"?
-
-
-
08 May 09
-
compulsion
-
compulsion
- 3 more annotations...
-
-
serendipity
-
There is a fundamental difference in the activities of
browsing to find interesting content, as opposed to direct
searching to find relevant documents in a query. -
Information
seeking behavior varies based on context.
-
-
-
30 Apr 09
-
15 Apr 09
-
05 Apr 09
-
30 Mar 09
-
-
professional creation and author
creation -
metadata to be created by
authors - 2 more annotations...
-
-
Metadata is often characterized as “data about data.
-
This often requires serious education and
training. The library and information science field has
developed elaborate rules and schemes for cataloging,
categorization and classification that include classification
schemes such as the Dewey Decimal System and Library of Congress
Classification Scheme, as well as large controlled vocabularies
of terms for describing the subject of materials, such as the
Library of Congress Subject Headings.-
Gaby Richard-Harrington on 2009-03-31
Taxonomy
-
-
-
-
10 Feb 09
Tom George2004 paper by Adam Mathes, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
-
What seems to be relatively new and different
is the emphasis on user added keywords as a fundamental
organizational construct. These keywords, which are referred to
as “tags” on the site, allow users to describe and organize
content with any vocabulary they choose.
-
-
02 Feb 09
-
13 Jan 09
-
08 Jan 09
-
29 Nov 08
-
11 Nov 08
-
24 Oct 08
Anette SeilerThis paper examines user-generated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital media to better understand grassroots classification. Metadata - data about data - allows systems to collocate related infor
-
africangirlThis paper examines user-generated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital media to better understand grassroots classification. Metadata - data about data - allows systems to collocate related infor
-
19 Oct 08
-
04 Sep 08
-
01 Sep 08
-
27 Jun 08
-
user-created
metadata, where users of the documents and media create metadata
for their own individual use that is also shared throughout a
community. -
These folksonomies are
simply the set of terms that a group of users tagged content
with, they are not a predetermined set of classification terms
or labels. - 20 more annotations...
-
-
the dual nature of these systems: the compulsion to
share - what is the Internet if not a venue for
sharing cute photographs? - and conversely the importance of
individuality and ego for these systems to work. -
Ambiguity of the tags can emerge as users apply
the same tag in different ways. At the opposite end of the
spectrum, the lack of synonym control can lead to different
tags being used for the same concept, precluding
collocation. -
serendipity
-
browsing the system
and its interlinked related tag sets is wonderful for
finding things unexpectedly in a general area -
Perhaps the most important strength
of a folksonomy is that it directly reflects the vocabulary
of users -
it directly reflects their choices in diction,
terminology, and precision. -
folksonomy, with its uncontrolled nature and
organic growth, has the capability to adapt very quickly to
user vocabulary changes and needs. There is no significant
cost for a user or for the system to add new terms to the
folksonomy. -
way or
organizing information, and that a large group of people are
using these systems, -
I think the lack of hierarchy, synonym
control and semantic precision are precisely why it
works. -
Feedback is immediate.
-
But the real power emerges when
you expand the scope to include all items, from all users,
that match your tag -
This tight feedback loop leads to a form of asymmetrical
communication between users through metadata. The users of a
system are negotiating the meaning of the terms in the
folksonomy, whether purposefully or not, through their
individual choices of tags to describe documents for
themselves.
There are two models to describe what is happening here:
one that focuses on individual incentives, and one that
focuses on community aspects. -
Individuals have an incentive
to tag their materials with terms that will help them organize
their collections in a way that they can find these items
later. The organizational scheme that emerges for each
individual reflects their individual information needs. -
the behavior of the users can also be thought
of as being influenced and related to their relationship to
the other individuals using the service, and specific groups
of users who they share tag use with -
community formation through metadata
-
A folksonomy lowers the barriers to cooperation. Groups of
users do not have to agree on a hierarchy of tags or detailed
taxonomy, they only need to agree, in a general sense, on the
“meaning” of a tag enough to label similar material with terms
for there to be cooperation and shared value. Although this
may require a change in vocabulary for some users, it is never
forced, and as Udell discussed, the tight feedback loop
provides incentives for this cooperation. -
community and individual motivations, are
not mutually exclusive -
A user on Flickr, Andrew Lowosky, began posting pictures of
doorbells in Florence, along with a brief piece of fiction
about the doorbell in the description of the photograph. He
dubbed this combination of photograph and short story
“flicktion,” and tagged it as such. (Lowosky,
2004.) Some other users have been tagging photographs with
“flicktion” and writing short fiction to accompany it -
the most used tags are more likely to
be used by other users since they are more likely to be seen -
A folksonomy represents simultaneously
some of the best and worst in the organization of
information. Its uncontrolled nature is fundamentally chaotic,
suffers from problems of imprecision and ambiguity that well
developed controlled vocabularies and name authorities
effectively ameliorate. Conversely, systems employing free-form
tagging that are encouraging users to organize information in
their own ways are supremely responsive to user needs and
vocabularies, and involve the users of information actively in
the organizational system. Overall, transforming the creation
of explicit metadata for resources from an isolated,
professional activity into a shared, communicative activity by
users is an important development that should be explored and
considered for future systems development.
-
-
-
Paul Beaufaitreference from Folksonomies: Tidying up Tags?
folksonomies tags tagging collaboration metadata classification online
-
25 Jun 08
-
15 Jun 08
-
14 Jun 08
-
13 May 08
-
10 May 08
-
07 May 08
bea fortinezFolksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata
-
06 May 08
-
03 May 08
-
29 Apr 08
-
User created metadata is a third approach, and this paper
focuses on grassroots community classification of digital
assets. -
user added keywords
-
-
01 Apr 08
-
-
30 Mar 08
-
20 Mar 08
-
04 Mar 08
-
28 Feb 08
-
25 Feb 08
-
10 Feb 08
-
A folksonomy represents simultaneously
some of the best and worst in the organization of
information. Its uncontrolled nature is fundamentally chaotic,
suffers from problems of imprecision and ambiguity that well
developed controlled vocabularies and name authorities
effectively ameliorate. Conversely, systems employing free-form
tagging that are encouraging users to organize information in
their own ways are supremely responsive to user needs and
vocabularies, and involve the users of information actively in
the organizational system. Overall, transforming the creation
of explicit metadata for resources from an isolated,
professional activity into a shared, communicative activity by
users is an important development that should be explored and
considered for future systems development.
-
-
06 Feb 08
-
28 Jan 08
-
09 Jan 08
-
10 Dec 07
-
04 Dec 07
Karen MontgomeryFolksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata
collaboration web_2.0 podcasting flickr social_bookmarking del.icio.us resources education folksonomies tagging
-
08 Nov 07
-
06 Nov 07
Veronika Smithuser-generated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital media to better understand classification. Metadata allows systems to collocate related information, and helps users find relevant information
folksonomy tagging tags classification facet software metadata architecture ia bookmarking del.icio.us controlled-vocabulary
-
14 Oct 07
-
04 Oct 07
Yann LerouxFolksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata
-
01 Oct 07
-
27 Aug 07
-
11 Aug 07
-
10 Aug 07
-
07 Aug 07
-
02 Aug 07
-
11 Jul 07
-
18 Jun 07
-
10 Jun 07
-
02 Jun 07
-
30 May 07
-
28 May 07
-
24 May 07
-
16 May 07
-
14 May 07
Aviva GabrielWhile professionally created metadata are often considered of high quality, it is costly in terms of time and effort to produce. User created metadata is a third approach, and this paper focuses on grassroots community classification of digital assets.
-
04 May 07
-
This paper focus primarily on descriptive metadata which
identifies and functions to organize information based on its
intellectual content. -
While professionally created metadata are often considered of
high quality, it is costly in terms of time and effort to
produce. This makes it very difficult to scale and keep up with
the vast amounts of new content being produced, especially in
new mediums like the World Wide Web. - 12 more annotations...
-
-
User created metadata is a third approach, and this paper
focuses on grassroots community classification of digital
assets. -
What seems to be relatively new and different
is the emphasis on user added keywords as a fundamental
organizational construct. These keywords, which are referred to
as “tags” on the site, allow users to describe and organize
content with any vocabulary they choose. -
A primary difference between Delicious and Flickr is that
while the tags on Delicious are primarily from the users of web
documents that were written by another party, Flickr is
primarily used by individuals to manage their own digital
images, and the majority of the tags are users tagging photos
they created themselves. This is not absolute; the system does
have the option of allowing users designated as friends or
family to tag a users’ photos. Additionally, users can and do
enter images others created into the system, often from web
sites. This use of the system is much more like Delicious, but
seems to be a small fraction of the use. -
The organic system of organization
developing in Delicious and Flickr was called a “folksonomy” by
Thomas Vander Wal in a discussion on an information architecture
mailing list (Smith, 2004). It is a combination of “folk” and
“taxonomy.” -
An important aspect of a folksonomy is that is comprised of
terms in a flat namespace: that is, there is no hierarchy, and
no directly specified parent-child or sibling relationships
between these terms. -
Two tags of particular interest are “cute,” and “me.” This
will be elaborated upon later, but I think these two terms
reflect the dual nature of these systems: the compulsion to
share - what is the Internet if not a venue for
sharing cute photographs? - and conversely the importance of
individuality and ego for these systems to work.
-
In a folksonomy the set of terms is a flat
namespace: there are no clearly defined relations between the
terms in the vocabulary. -
Perhaps the most important strength
of a folksonomy is that it directly reflects the vocabulary
of users. -
As discussed
earlier, a folksonomy represents a fundamental shift in that
it is derived not from professionals or content creators,
but from the users of information and documents. In this
way, it directly reflects their choices in diction,
terminology, and precision. -
Some classification schemes are disjoint from the
vocabulary of the users. In “Metadata for the Masses,” Peter
Merholz argues that a folksonomy can be quite useful in that
it reveals the digital equivalent of “desire lines”
(Merholz, 2004). Desire lines are the foot-worn paths that
sometimes appear in a landscape over time. Merholz notes, “A
smart landscape designer will let wanderers create paths
through use, and then pave the emerging walkways, ensuring
optimal utility. Ethnoclassification systems can similarly
‘emerge.’ Once you have a preliminary system in place, you
can use the most common tags to develop a controlled
vocabulary that truly speaks the users’ language.” -
Although the Delicious tags on Merholz’s article are only
one example, a folksonomy, with its uncontrolled nature and
organic growth, has the capability to adapt very quickly to
user vocabulary changes and needs. There is no significant
cost for a user or for the system to add new terms to the
folksonomy. The problem is that while the disparate user
vocabularies and terms enable some very interesting browsing
and finding, the sheer multiplicity of terms and
vocabularies may overwhelm the content with noisy metadata
that is not useful or relevant to a user. -
“Aside: I think the lack of hierarchy, synonym
control and semantic precision are precisely why it
works. Free typing loose associations is just a lot easier
than making a decision about the degree of match to a
pre-defined category (especially hierarchical ones). It’s like
90% of the value of a ‘proper’ taxonomy but 10 times simpler.”
(Butterfield, 2004)
-
-
-
02 May 07
-
14 Apr 07
-
27 Mar 07
-
02 Feb 07
Rudy GarnsThis paper examines user-generated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital media to better understand grassroots classification.
collaboration del.icio.us flickr folksonomy metadata social.bookmarking tagging taxonomy
-
23 Jan 07
-
10 Jan 07
-
06 Jan 07
-
28 Dec 06
-
21 Dec 06
-
06 Dec 06
-
19 Nov 06
-
-
17 Nov 06
-
15 Nov 06
-
02 Nov 06
-
Tagging Content in Del.icio.us and Flickr
-
-
30 Oct 06
-
26 Oct 06
-
25 Oct 06
Public Stiky Notes
Page Comments
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.