• Save
Tagging in government institutions
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Tagging in government institutions

on

  • 5,342 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
5,342
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
5,331
Embed Views
11

Actions

Likes
9
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 11

http://www.knosos.be 9
http://www.slideshare.net 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Tagging in government institutions Tagging in government institutions Presentation Transcript

    • The Introduction of Folksonomies in Government Institutions GovCamp Brussels – 21 September 2006 Céline Van Damme [email_address]
    • Structure of the talk
      • Folksonomies on the WWW
      • Folksonomies in enterprises
      • Folksonomies in Government Institutions
    • Structure of the talk
      • Folksonomies on the WWW
      • Folksonomies in enterprises
      • Folksonomies in Government Institutions
    • Folksonomies on the WWW(1)
      • New trend on WWW
      • Users are creating metadata by adding tags to content
      • Consolidation leads to a bottom-up taxonomy = folksonomy
      • Examples: Delicious (bookmarks), Flickr (Photos)
    • Folksonomies on the WWW(2)
      • Very popular:retrieving content in an easy way
      • New York Times Magazine mentioned folksonomies as one of 2005’s best ideas
      • Semantic web development
    • Structure of the talk
      • Folksonomies on the WWW
      • Folksonomies in enterprises
      • Folksonomies in Government Institutions
    • Folksonomies in enterprises
      • Example: IBM
      • Gartner predicts: “ Corporate Intelligence will become one of the emergent technologies in the next 5 or 10 years which will have a transformational impact on business ”
      • Why not introducing it in government institutions?
    • Structure of the talk
      • Folksonomies on the WWW
      • Folksonomies in enterprises
      • Folksonomies in Government Institutions
    • Folksonomies in Government Institutions
      • Retrieving Content
      • Finding Experts
      • Document Recommendation
      • Improving or creating Taxonomy/Ontology
    • Folksonomies in Government Institutions
      • Retrieving Content
      • Finding Experts
      • Document Recommendation
      • Improving or creating Taxonomy/Ontology
    • Retrieving Content A. Intranet Internet Technology: WWW Intranet Infoglut Increasing # of web pages Social software Electronic Documents (Pdf, doc etc) Folksonomies Semantic Web B. Other: CMS, DB with unstructured information
    • Folksonomies in Government Institutions
      • Retrieving Content
      • Finding Experts
      • Document Recommendation
      • Improving or creating Taxonomy/Ontology
    • Finding Experts (1)
      • Implicit Tagging
      • Based on tagging activity of content
      • Tags are a reflection of knowledge
      • Explicit Tagging
      • Let people tag their colleagues (e.g. when receiving an e-mail)
      • Weights: reciprocity
      • Implicit + Explicit Tagging
      • Let people tag content + colleagues  match
    • Finding Experts (2)
      • Advantages
      • Government institutions employ many people  impossible to know everybody
      • Setting up a meeting
      • Setting up a community
      • E-mails
    • Folksonomies in Government Institutions
      • Retrieving Content
      • Finding Experts
      • Document Recommendation
      • Improving or creating Taxonomy/Ontology
    • Document Recommendation
      • Tags are a good reflection of knowledge and interests
      • Experts are reading high quality documents
      • Experts are good at describing documents with concepts
      •  Push/Pull Recommendation
    • Folksonomies in Government Institutions
      • Retrieving Content
      • Finding Experts
      • Document Recommendation
      • Improving or creating Taxonomy/Ontology
    • Improving or creating Taxonomy/Ontology
      • Folksonomies
      • S = direct reflection user’s vocabulary
      • W = no synonym control
      • Taxonomy/ontology
      • S = controlled vocabulary/concepts
      • W =time consuming + expensive
      •  Opportunity = offset the weaknesses of formal semantics (ontology) with the strengths of informal semantics (folksonomy) and vice versa
    • References
      • Van Damme, Céline. Folksonomies and Enterprise Folksonomies. Vrije Universiteit Brussel. (2006)
      • Harris Wu, Mohammed Zubair, Kurt Maly. Harvesting social knowledge from folksonomies. Proceedings of the seventh conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia HYPERTEXT ’06 (August 2006). pp 111-114.
      • Farrell Stephen, Lau Tessa. Fringe Contacts: People-tagging for the enterprise. WWW2006 (May 2006).
      • URL: http://www.rawsugar.com/www2006/25.pdf#search=%22Fringe%20Contacts%3A%20People-tagging%20for%20the%20enterprise%22
      • John Ajita, Seligmann Dorée. Collaborative tagging and expertise in the enterprise. WWW2006 (May 2006). URL: http://www.rawsugar.com/www2006/26.pdf#search=%22Collaborative%20tagging%20and%20expertise%20in%20the%20enterprise%20%22
      • Gartner Research Group (2006) Gartner's 2006 Emerging Technologies Hype Cycle Highlights Key Technology Themes. URL: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=495475