Tagging & Folksonomies poster

Slide 1: Tagging & Folksonomies 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 Social Applications Traditional Library Applications Museum/Archival Applications Value Venues Value •User-generated vocabulary based on •Social Networking Sites •Tagging: dialog between viewer and work as well •GoodReads personal understanding of object as viewer and museum •“Placing Hooks” •Information Management Sites •Encourages personal interpretations of work •Serendipitous browsing capabilities •LibraryThing •Fosters/maintains museum relationships •Inexpensive way to create order and •PennTags •Serves altruistic purpose of museums community Directions steve.museum (www.steve.museum) •Towards a shelfless library Examples •Collaborative research project (launched in 2005) •www.Flickr.com •Items in multiple “locations” that explores the potential for tagging within the •Photo sharing and management site •Towards a personal experience context of museums. •Narrow •Evocation of personal feelings Goals: •www.Del.icio.us •Movement away from Library-centeredness •Motivate users to tag, guide them through the •Social bookmarks manager •PennTags process, and reward them when done (create •Broad Emergence of Folksonomies prolonged and repeat use by giving users control) •Traditional subjects reaffirmed Limitations •Integrate contributed data into local •No synonym control •Traditional facets reaffirmed documentation systems to improve access to •No hierarchal structure •New descriptors emerge collections •Do not consider the future •Personal descriptions •Encourage engagement with cultural content •New representations of the traditional emerge •Innovative combinations Pros: Cons: •no controlled vocabulary, synonym/homonym control; lack of hierarchy •supplements traditional cataloging by increasing access points, findability •tags may be imprecise, ambiguous, inconsistent, or overly personal •encourages discovery/rediscovery and sharing of information 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