• Like
  • Save
Tagging and Folksonomies
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Tagging and Folksonomies

on

  • 7,791 views

Presentation for LIS 653

Presentation for LIS 653

Statistics

Views

Total Views
7,791
Views on SlideShare
7,323
Embed Views
468

Actions

Likes
6
Downloads
0
Comments
1

6 Embeds 468

http://tutorsite.wordpress.com 397
http://www.epsilen.com 45
http://colebrook.edublogs.org 19
http://www.slideshare.net 4
http://www.365dailyjournal.com 2
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1

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

11 of 1

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Good presentation ! thanks for sharing !
    http://www.comparatif-cybermarche.com/
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Tagging and Folksonomies Tagging and Folksonomies Presentation Transcript

  • Tagging and Folksonomies Brandy Jolly Heather Hunt Maura Funchion
  • Tagging
    • The assignment of terms or keywords to objects, entities, etc. for classification and retrieval by users.
  • Examples of tags for the item below might be…
  • Folksonomies: What Are They?
    • “ A folksonomy is the result of personal free tagging of information and objects (anything with a URL) for one's own retrieval. The tagging is done in a social environment (shared and open to others). The act of tagging is done by the person consuming the information.”
    • -Thomas Vander Wal
  • Narrow and Broad Folksonomies
  • Bibliography
    • Dye, J. (2006, April). Folksonomy: A game of high-tech (and high-stakes) tag. EContent , 29 (3), 38-43.
    • Guy, M., Tonkin, E. (2006, January). Folksonomies: Tidying up tags? D-Lib Magazine , 12 (1). Retrieved October 8, 2007, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january06/guy/01guy.html .
    • Peterson, E. (2006, November). Beneath the metadata: Some philosophical problems with folksonomy. D-Lib Magazine , 12 (11). Retrieved October 8, 2007, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november06/peterson/11peterson.html .
    • Vander Wal, T. Folksonomy definition and wikipedia. Vanderwal.net. Retrieved November 10, 2007, from http:// www.vanderwal.net/random/entrysel.php?blog =1750 .
    • West, J. (2007, April/May). Subject headings 2.0: Folksonomies and tags. Library Media Connection , 25 (7), 58-59.
  • Social Applications
  • www.Flickr.com
    • A photo sharing and management site
    • Create a profile, upload pictures and attach tags or descriptions to them
    • Narrow taxonomy but can be used as a way to share information within a social construct
  • Flickr Groups
  • www.Del.icio.us.com
    • “ A social bookmarks manager. It allows you to easily add sites you like to your personal collection of links, to categorize those sites with keywords, and to share your collection not only between your own browsers and machines, but also with others” (Schachter, 2004).
  • Limitations
    • Synonym control
    • How do we tag this?
    • Mac, computer, apple, Macintosh, Macbook
    • No hierarchal structure
  • “ Social” Folksonomies
    • are easy for people to participate in
    • encourage natural language with room for subtleties
    • include people in a community activity
    • provide immediate feedback
    • encourage serendipity with browsing
    • create order where there was none before
    • are inexpensive in a way that classification done by trained experts cannot be
    • Bibliography
    • Flickr. November 11, 2007, from http://www.Flickr.com .
    • Gordon-Murnane, L. (2006, June). Social bookmarking, folksonomies, and web 2.0 tools. Searcher , 14 (6), 26-38.
    • Smith, G. Folksonomy: social classification. Atomiq. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from http://atomiq.org/archives/2004/08/folksonomy_social_classification.html .
    • Schachter, J. (2004). Del.icio.us about page. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http:// del.icio.us /doc/about .
    • Mathese, A. (2004). Folksonomies: Cooperative classification and communication through shared metadata. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign . Retrieved November 10, 2007, from http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated-communication/folksonomies.html .
  • Traditional Library Applications
  • Tagging Applications in the Library Setting
    • GoodReads
      • Social networking site
      • Only books
    • LibraryThing
      • Personal cataloging service
      • Only books
      • LibraryThing for Libraries feature
    • PennTags (University of Pennsylvania)
      • Social bookmarking site
      • Any item/object/document
  • GoodReads
    • “ It’s what your friends are reading!”
    • Purpose: Social Networking
    • Searches Amazon.com
      • Searches any Amazon site (Japanese, German, etc.)
    • Users define “shelves,” not tags
  • LibraryThing
    • “ Online service to help people catalog their books easily”
    • Purpose: Personal cataloging service
    • Searches other catalogs
      • Library of Congress
      • Any library catalog using Z39.50 protocol
    • Users define tags for books
  • LibraryThing for Libraries
    • Already in use at some the Danbury Library , among others
    • Future features
      • Library users can tag/recommend/review
  • PennTags
    • “ Social bookmarking tool…for the Penn Community”
    • Purpose: Bookmarking of URLs
    • Users find & add resources
      • Any URL
    • Users define tags for URLs
    • Approach is not library-centered
  • Folksonomies Emerge…
    • Traditional subjects reaffirmed
    • Traditional facets reaffirmed
      • Time, space, etc.
    • New descriptors emerge
      • Personal accounts of items
    • New representations of the traditional emerge
      • Innovative combinations
  • Pros & Cons…
    • Pros
      • Dynamic
      • User-defined
    • Cons
      • Unintelligible tags
      • We’re not quite there yet
  • Bibliography
    • GoodReads. (2007). About. Retrieved November 3, 2007, from http://www.goodreads.com/about/us .
    • Kroski, E. (2005). The hive mind: Folksonomies and user-based tagging. Retrieved October 12, 2007, from http://infotangle.blogsome.com/2005/12/07/the-hive-mind-folksonomies-and-user-based-tagging .
    • LibraryThing. (2007). About. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from http://www.librarything.com/about .
    • Shirky, C. (2005). Ontology is overrated: Categories, links, and tags. Retrieved November 3, 2007, from http://www.shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html .
    • University of Pennsylvania. (2007). PennTags/help. Retrieved November 12, 2007, from http:// tags.library.upenn.edu /help/ .
  • Museum/Archival Applications
  • Museums: Mission
    • To “build collections of objects and works of art that embody our cultural and natural heritage, to preserve and convey cultural meaning”
    • Information about collections is often as important as the objects themselves
  • Museums: Traditional Forms of Communication
    • Exhibitions
    • Catalogs
    • Publications
    • Lectures
    • Tours
    • School programs
  • Museums: Traditional Websites
    • Collections online are either:
      • Highly authored and linear
      • Isolated collection databases
      • * both types are written by and for art historians
  • Museums: Traditional Description & Collection Management
    • Curators describe:
      • Physical nature of object
      • Authorial role of its creator
      • Temporal, cultural context of creation and ownership
      • Scholarly significance of the work over time
    • Collection managers record:
      • Conservation, exhibition, loan, publication history
      • Acquisition, storage information
  • Museums: Bridging the Semantic Gap
    • Studies have shown that professional catalogers find basic description of visual elements difficult
    • “ Everything I know isn’t in the picture!” - curator
    • Documentation needs to represent multiple perspectives
  • Museums: Tagging
    • Dialog between the viewer and the work, and between the viewer and the museum
      • Encourages interpretation in relation to a personal narrative (sensemaking)
      • Provides insight into visitors’ perceptions and what they judge as important/relevant
      • Fills semantic and documentation gaps
      • Serves altruistic purpose of museums
  • Museum Folksonomies: steve.museum
    • Collaborative research project (launched in 2005) that explores the potential for tagging to improve access to museum collections and encourage engagement with cultural content
    • Collaborate to develop a shared open-source tool that enables the collection of user terminology and facilitates its analysis
  • steve.museum: Contributors
    • Denver Art Museum
    • Guggenheim Museum
    • The Cleveland Museum of Art
    • Indianapolis Museum of Art
    • Los Angeles County Museum of Art
    • The Metropolitan Museum of Art
    • Minneapolis Institute of Arts
    • The Rubin Museum of Art
    • San Francisco Museum of Modern Art
    • Archives & Museum Informatics
    • Think Design
  • steve.museum: Goals
    • Participants plan to integrate contributed data into local documentation systems to improve access
    • Data will either be kept in separate local systems or integrated into collections management systems
    • Maintaining the source of terms will be critical for evaluating the effectiveness of tagging
  • steve.museum: Tagging
    • http:// tagger.steve.museum/steve.php?task = loginController_loginPage
  • Proof of Concept
    • Museum cataloging
    • Artist/Maker: Joachim Friess, ca. 1579-1610
    • Title: Diana and the Stag
    • Object Name: Automaton
    • Date: First quarter 17 th c. (ca 1620)
    • Culture: German (Augsburg)
    • Made in: Augsburg, Germany
    • Medium: Silver, partly gilt, jewels, enamel
    • Classification: Metalwork-Silver
    • Dimensions: 14 ¾ x 9 ½ in. (37.5 x 24.1 cm)
    • Credit Line: Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1917
    • Department: European Sculpture and Decorative Arts
  • Proof of Concept: Results
    • User-supplied terms examples:
    • archery bejeweled
    • jumping nude
    • antler figurative
    • saddle ornate
    • horse clockwork
    • rearing woman
    • bridle arrow
    • luxury dog/dogs
  • steve.museum: Interface Needs
    • Tools that motivate users to tag, guide them through the process, and reward them when done
    • “ Stickiness”: enticing users to spend time in the system and return for additional sessions
  • Museum Folksonomies: Examples
    • The Cleveland Museum of Art
    • “ Help others find me” tool
    • http:// www.clevelandart.org/index.html
    • Powerhouse Museum (Sydney, Australia)
    • “ Add keywords” tool
    • http:// www.powerhousemuseum.com/exhibitions/inspired.asp
    • Smithsonian Photography Initiative
    • “ Enter the Frame” tool
    • http:// photography.si.edu/Exhibitions.aspx
    • (tags immediately visible to user; added to database after a professional has reviewed them)
  • Museum Folksonomies: Issues
    • Tagging tools should be:
      • highly visible/accessible on museum websites
      • simple to use (no complicated or lengthy instructions)
      • consistent in design
      • be available for all works in a collection, ideally
  • Bibliography
    • Bearman, D., Trant J. (2005, September). Social terminology enhancement through vernacular engagement: Exploring collaborative annotation to encourage interaction with museum collections. D-Lib Magazine , 11 (9). Retrieved October 8, 2007, from http://cca.guggenheim.org/static/reference/dlib-steve-0509preprint.pdf .
    • Chun, S., Cherry, R., Hiwiller, D., Trant, J., Wyman, B. (2006). Steve.museum: An ongoing experiment in social tagging, folksonomy, and museums. Museums and the Web 2006. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from http://www.archimuse.com/mw2006/papers/wyman/wyman.html .
    • O’Connell, P. (2007, March 28). One picture, 1,000 tags. The New York Times . Retrieved October 20, 2007 from http:// www.nytimes.com .
    • Trant, J. Exploring the potential for social tagging and folksonomy in art museums: Proof of concept. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia . Retrieved October 10, 2007, from http://www.steve.museum/index.php?option= com_weblinks&task = view&catid =35&id=37 .
    • Trant, J. (2006, November 4). Social classification and folksonomy in art museums: Early data from the steve.museum tagger prototype. ASIST-CR Social Classification Workshop. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from
    • http://www.archimuse.com/papers/asist-CR-steve-0611.pdf .
    • Trant, J., Wyman, B. (2006). Investigating social tagging and folksonomy in art museums with steve.museum. Tagging Workshop, World Wide Web 2006. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from http://www.steve.museum/static/reference/www2006-tagging-steve.pdf .