Folksonomies A bottom-up social categorization system

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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 "rise to the top" and self-amplify, while the less-instantiated ones would "fall to the bottom“ Ease and adaptability of a folksonomy plus semantic richness and formal structure of an ontology

A folksonomy combined with an ontology

users could propose or modify ontological classes and properties

the most popular ontological constructs would "rise to the top" and self-amplify, while the less-instantiated ones would "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?

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

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.

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.