Tags: terms used to identify resources for retrieval; created and defined by users who are both the providers of content and the end-users Folksonomies: composed of user-generated metadata, created by tagging pieces of digital information with their own searchable keywords broad: third-party users assign tags to the same content, creating metadata for their bookmarks; sites aggregate this metadata, make it searchable narrow: users tag their own content so that they can easily retrieve it and help others find it; useful for assigning metadata to unique content Museum/Archival Applications Value Tagging: dialog between viewer and work as well as viewer and museum Encourages personal interpretations of work Fosters/maintains museum relationships Serves altruistic purpose of museums steve.museum (www.steve.museum) Collaborative research project (launched in 2005) that explores the potential for tagging within the context of museums. Goals: Motivate users to tag, guide them through the process, and reward them when done (create prolonged and repeat use by giving users control) Integrate contributed data into local documentation systems to improve access to collections Encourage engagement with cultural content Traditional Library Applications Venues Social Networking Sites GoodReads Information Management Sites LibraryThing PennTags Directions Towards a shelfless library Items in multiple “locations” Towards a personal experience Evocation of personal feelings Movement away from Library-centeredness PennTags Emergence of Folksonomies Traditional subjects reaffirmed Traditional facets reaffirmed New descriptors emerge Personal descriptions New representations of the traditional emerge Innovative combinations Tagging & Folksonomies Social Applications Value User-generated vocabulary based on personal understanding of object “ Placing Hooks” Serendipitous browsing capabilities Inexpensive way to create order and community Examples www.Flickr.com Photo sharing and management site Narrow www.Del.icio.us Social bookmarks manager Broad Limitations No synonym control No hierarchal structure Do not consider the future Pros: supplements traditional cataloging by increasing access points, findability encourages discovery/rediscovery and sharing of information Cons: no controlled vocabulary, synonym/homonym control; lack of hierarchy tags may be imprecise, ambiguous, inconsistent, or overly personal Goals: introduce controlled vocabulary to tagging systems; tools should be simple, efficient and not require large investments of capital; they should make it easier to locate new and older materials and allow reuse/remix of content and data to produce new collections and online tools

Tags: terms used to identify resources for retrieval; created and defined by users who are both the providers of content and the end-users

Folksonomies: composed of user-generated metadata, created by tagging pieces of digital information with their own searchable keywords

broad: third-party users assign tags to the same content, creating metadata for their bookmarks; sites aggregate this metadata, make it searchable

narrow: users tag their own content so that they can easily retrieve it and help others find it; useful for assigning metadata to unique content

Museum/Archival Applications

Value

Tagging: dialog between viewer and work as well as viewer and museum

Encourages personal interpretations of work

Fosters/maintains museum relationships

Serves altruistic purpose of museums

steve.museum (www.steve.museum)

Collaborative research project (launched in 2005) that explores the potential for tagging within the context of museums.

Goals:

Motivate users to tag, guide them through the process, and reward them when done (create prolonged and repeat use by giving users control)

Integrate contributed data into local documentation systems to improve access to collections

Encourage engagement with cultural content

Traditional Library Applications

Venues

Social Networking Sites

GoodReads

Information Management Sites

LibraryThing

PennTags

Directions

Towards a shelfless library

Items in multiple “locations”

Towards a personal experience

Evocation of personal feelings

Movement away from Library-centeredness

PennTags

Emergence of Folksonomies

Traditional subjects reaffirmed

Traditional facets reaffirmed

New descriptors emerge

Personal descriptions

New representations of the traditional emerge

Innovative combinations

Value

User-generated vocabulary based on personal understanding of object

“ Placing Hooks”

Serendipitous browsing capabilities

Inexpensive way to create order and community

Examples

www.Flickr.com

Photo sharing and management site

Narrow

www.Del.icio.us

Social bookmarks manager

Broad

Limitations

No synonym control

No hierarchal structure

Do not consider the future

Pros:

supplements traditional cataloging by increasing access points, findability

encourages discovery/rediscovery and sharing of information

Cons:

no controlled vocabulary, synonym/homonym control; lack of hierarchy

tags may be imprecise, ambiguous, inconsistent, or overly personal