Possibilities for Social Tagging in a VR Collection

284 views
173 views

Published on

Riley, Jenn. "Possibilities for Social Tagging in a VR Collection." Power to the People: Art Libraries Society of North America Annual Conference, April 28, 2007

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
284
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Possibilities for Social Tagging in a VR Collection

  1. 1. Possibilities for Social Tagging in a VR Collection Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian Indiana University Digital Library Program
  2. 2. What are we doing at IU?   Nothing in production yet but much interest DIDO VR collection    Variations digital audio plans    2006 experimentation with FA faculty contributing subject terms Anticipated (but unscheduled) major overhaul to system will include methods for user participation Structured metadata for some fields Synchronizing scores and audio But how do we decide what to implement? April 28, 2007 Power to the People: ARLIS 2007 2
  3. 3. Purposes of tags  Golder & Huberman classification based on study of del.icio.us tags        Identifying what (or who) it is about (overwhelmingly most frequent usage) Identifying what it is Identifying who owns it Refining categories Identifying qualities or characteristics Self reference Task organizing April 28, 2007 Power to the People: ARLIS 2007 3
  4. 4. Beyond “tags”   Identification Structured metadata  Factual information (dates, etc.) Subjective information (subjects, etc.)    April 28, 2007 Ratings, reviews, commentary, etc. Relationships    Secondary sources Multiple versions Alignment Power to the People: ARLIS 2007 4
  5. 5. Decisions to make for a tagging implementation     Who What Incentive Control April 28, 2007 Power to the People: ARLIS 2007 5
  6. 6. Who  Libraries have been expanding “who” creates records     VR world also sees need for expansion    Copy cataloging “De-professionalization” of cataloging Vendor records UCAI Efforts to get data from museums Our users often know a great deal more about these resources than we do April 28, 2007 Power to the People: ARLIS 2007 6
  7. 7. Options for “who”       Anybody Those who register .edu addresses IU community Specific roles within IU community Specific designated authorized users April 28, 2007 Power to the People: ARLIS 2007 7
  8. 8. What  Tagging isn’t necessarily unstructured    del.icio.us tag descriptions Flickr machine tags Systems could open up user contributions in some areas but not others April 28, 2007 Power to the People: ARLIS 2007 8
  9. 9. Options for “what”    Unstructured tagging only, separate from catalogercreated metadata Add places in the system for the other uses tags are put to Some metadata elements      Subjective data Factual data “Extra” data elements Commentary Any metadata element April 28, 2007 Power to the People: ARLIS 2007 9
  10. 10. Incentive     Tagging is work Users must have a reason to perform that work Asking users to participate in our existing metadata creation workflows is unlikely to be successful; we need to move into their space Users more likely to tag resources they already have an interest in April 28, 2007 Power to the People: ARLIS 2007 10
  11. 11. Options for incentive       Money Manage personal resources Assistance with needed task Recognition Contribution to the greater good Fun April 28, 2007 Power to the People: ARLIS 2007 11
  12. 12. Control     A common assumption is that library-created metadata is consistent and error-free. This is a fallacy. Is it really more important for metadata creators to know about structural rules than about the content itself? Must re-examine where we need structural control of metadata The system can play a much larger role in enforcing what control we do need April 28, 2007 Power to the People: ARLIS 2007 12
  13. 13. Options for control  Allow all user contributions to appear immediately      No formal editorial mechanisms Editors oversee contributions after the fact Streamlined approval mechanism Some elements less control, some more User contributions as suggestions to be independently verified by metadata experts April 28, 2007 Power to the People: ARLIS 2007 13
  14. 14. System contributions to controlled data       Pick lists Spell check Behind-the-scenes authority files Normalization algorithms Creative interface design … April 28, 2007 Power to the People: ARLIS 2007 14
  15. 15. Everything in moderation     Use the general idea, not necessarily all the details Opening up metadata creation to users does not necessarily mean a complete loss of control No single approach will be enough on its own Always remember what we’re using this metadata for April 28, 2007 Power to the People: ARLIS 2007 15
  16. 16. Moving forward (1)     Libraries can’t continue to rely exclusively on inhouse cataloging We can achieve our overall goals while allowing new mechanisms along the way Users are one additional source of metadata we must tap We must match metadata needs to the tasks users are best equipped to perform April 28, 2007 Power to the People: ARLIS 2007 16
  17. 17. Moving forward (2)    Each system may make different choices regarding where user-contributed metadata makes sense Good interfaces for metadata collection will be key We must use the best ideas for user participation, and adapt them for the library environment April 28, 2007 Power to the People: ARLIS 2007 17
  18. 18. For more information   jenlrile@indiana.edu These presentation slides: <http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/~jenlrile/presentations/arlis2007/arlis.ppt>  Golder, Scott A. & Bernardo A. Huberman, “The Structure of Collaborative Tagging Systems,” Journal of Information Science 32 (2), 2006, 198–208. April 28, 2007 Power to the People: ARLIS 2007 18

×