• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Folksonomies: a bottom-up social categorization system

Folksonomies: a bottom-up social categorization system



The first presentation about collaborative tagging i did

The first presentation about collaborative tagging i did



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



15 Embeds 215

http://arek.bibliotekarz.com 113
http://www.istitutoeuropaunita.it 28
http://www.peabirus.com.br 16
http://www.slideshare.net 11
http://mediacafepl.blogspot.com 9
http://2011webresources.wikispaces.com 8
http://web2cafe.blogspot.com 7
http://www.techgig.com 7 3
http://www.rewagarud.blogspot.com 3
http://blog.bib20.com 3
http://www.yokway.com:9080 3
http://rewagarud.blogspot.com 2 1
https://www.google.pl 1



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.


14 of 4 previous next Post a comment

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • Great display about the need to innovate business models; tips on how to represent them succinctly; as well as the need to make advancement initiatives actionable. Superb use of pictures and clear to see illustrative examples.
    http://winkhealth.com http://financewink.com
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • very good<br /><br/>
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • folktology: folk + ontology
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • I suggest to give a read to the facetag project
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Folksonomies: a bottom-up social categorization system Folksonomies: a bottom-up social categorization system Presentation Transcript

  • Folksonomies
      • A bottom-up social categorization system
  • Definition
    • Etymology: “ Folk ” + “ Taxonomy ”
      • Folk = done by people
      • Taxonomy = a classification of items into groups based on similarities of structure or origin
    • A way to organize and share contents
      • Tagging resources (e.g. Tack labels to URI)
      • Synonyms: ethnoclassification, collaborative tagging
  • Features
    • Bottom-up (Created by Users)
    • No structure
    • No fixed vocabulary
    • No explicit relationships between terms
    • No authority
    • Distribution
    • Collaboration
  • What’s new? Collaboration
    • You can tag items owned by others
    • Instant feedback
      • All items with the same tag
      • All tags for the same item
    • Communication through shared metadata
      • Tight feedback loop
      • Negotiation about the meaning of the terms
        • You could adapt your tags to the group norm
        • Never forced
  • Benefits
    • Cheap and easy way to classify
    • Capable to adapt very quickly to changes and user needs
      • scalable approach
    • Reflects the vocabulary of users
    • Fosters serendipity
      • browsing vs finding
    • Lowers the barriers to cooperation
      • Facilitate communication through metadata
  • Limits
    • Ambiguity
      • Polisemy (same tag used with different meaning)
      • Synonyms (different tags with the same meaning)
      • Plural vs Singular
      • Acronyms
    • Formatting of terms
      • Spaces, multiple words
    • Tag Language
      • Different languages for the same tag
    • Shortsighted
      • fail to capture the “big picture”
    • Too little formal structure
      • No relationship between related tags
  • Taxonomy vs Folksonomy
    • Hierarchical
      • Parent/child & sibling relationship
    • Exclusive
      • The same item can not be in two distinct categories
    • Top-down
      • Established by an authority
    • Flat
      • No levels, order, explicit relationship
    • Not Exclusive
      • An item can be associated to many tags
    • Bottom-up
      • Created by users
  • The old way creates a tree The new rakes leaves together
  • Ontology
    • Differ from taxonomic approach
      • Not just “stamp collecting”
      • Do not follow a rigid parent/child hierarchical structure
      • Terms may inherit meaning from more than one parent
        • More complex relationship is maintained
      • May add inference engines
  • Ontology
    • An enabling technology for information sharing and manipulation
      • XML allows users to add arbitrary structure to their documents but says nothing about what the structures mean
      • RDF enables expression of meaning (sets of triples, each triple being rather like the subject, verb and object)
      • OWL enables machines to comprehend semantic documents and data
  • Folsonomy vs Ontology
    • Domain
      • Large corpus
      • Informal categories
      • Unstable entities
      • Unestricted entities
      • Unclear edges
    • Partecipants
      • Naive catalogers
      • No Authority
      • Uncoordinated users
      • Amateur users
      • critical mass needed
    • Domain
      • Small corpus
      • Formal categories
      • Stable entities
      • Restricted entities
      • Clear edges
    • Partecipants
      • Expert catalogers
      • Authoritative source of judgment
      • Coordinated users
      • Expert users
      • Not too many (in the development process)
  • What is the best choice?
    • Folksonomies are useful when all that is needed is the ability to link items to topics
    • Ontologies are useful when what is needed is to rigorously define or understand what is meant, or not meant, by particular classes, fields and relationships
  • Research Directions
    • Combination of two distinct approaches
      • Hybrid System
    • Quantitative tag analysis & qualitative user analysis in current social software
    • Applicability to new domains
  • Folktology: Folk Ontology
    • A folksonomy combined with an ontology
      • users could propose or modify ontological classes and properties
      • the most popular ontological constructs would &quot;rise to the top&quot; and self-amplify, while the less-instantiated ones would &quot;fall to the bottom“
    • Ease and adaptability of a folksonomy plus semantic richness and formal structure of an ontology
  • Tags analysis
    • Analyzing tags distribution
      • To understand if it converges or it does not
    • Analyzing people motivations when tagging
      • To understand how a folksonomy is formed
    • Others kind of analysis?
  • Some hypothetical domains
    • Tagging of Web Services
    • Tagging of process tasks
    • Tagging in Source Code Management Systems (when you commit)
    • Tagging of messages in mailing lists
    • Tagging in file sharing applications
  • References
    • Mathes, A., Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata . Computer Mediated Communication LIS590CMC, December 2004.
    • Sturtz, D. N., Communal Categorization: the Folksonomy . INFO622: Content Representation, December 2004.
    • Shirky, C. Ontology is Overrated: Categories, Links and Tags . 2005.
    • Golder, S. A., Huberman, B. A., The Structure of Collaborative Tagging Systems . 2005.
    • Quintarelli, E., Folksonomies: power to the people . Presented at the ISKO Italy-UniMIB meeting, Milan, June 24 2005.