SIRTEL'08 Cross Repository Tag Usage
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

SIRTEL'08 Cross Repository Tag Usage

on

  • 1,174 views

This presentation compares 3 educational tagging systems and their tags, and shows that tags from one system are of interest to users of the other, hence the idea of a cross-repository tag cloud. The ...

This presentation compares 3 educational tagging systems and their tags, and shows that tags from one system are of interest to users of the other, hence the idea of a cross-repository tag cloud. The papers are here: http://CEUR-WS.org/Vol-382/

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,174
Views on SlideShare
1,174
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

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

SIRTEL'08 Cross Repository Tag Usage SIRTEL'08 Cross Repository Tag Usage Presentation Transcript

    • Comparison of educational
    • tagging systems -
    • any chances of interplay?
    • Riina Vuorikari, Eun
    • Hans Pold õ ja, TU and MediaLab, Hki
  • What's for teachers?
  • What's for teachers? Replies based on 45 European primary and secondary teachers participating the MELT project
  • What’s for repositories
    • Harvesting
    • e.g. in the
    • MELT
    • project
  • Federated search
    • e.g. Globe or LRE
  • However In Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (JCAL), 24(4), 333-347 (2008)
  • As for the user...
    • Is federated search across repositories
    • and/or
    • harvested metadata from other repositories
    • enough?
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • Problem
    • Most times the interplay between LORs is about changing standards compliant metadata
    • and that has nothing to do with the user generated metadata which keeps the depth of the data
    • the depth?
  • Learning resource Expert indexer added metadata (LOM)‏ Users interact with resources: LOM and other annotations - social tags - ratings - sharable bookmarks & collections But it is not the whole story...
  • Learning resource Expert indexer added metadata (LOM)‏ Users interact with resources: LOM and other annotations - social tags - ratings - sharable bookmarks & collections Connections!
    • to study LORs and communities as a single system, rather than as a loose set of instruments, subject, objects and outcomes.
    • Margaryan and Littlejohn (2008) use Activity Theory - offers a holistic framework
    A need
  • INVESTIGATION
    • Does such interplay make sense?
    • We study 3 different resource platforms and their tags
  • Data set
  • Differences in Design
  • Differences in Philosophy
  • Semantic similarities!
  • Cross-repository tag cloud
    • The cloud would use only information pair: resource-tag
    • Access to 968 most tagged resources in all 3 platforms
  •  
  • Cross-repository tag cloud
    • Takes advantage of other user's experiences (social navigation)
    • Gives priority to user's participation in social interactions through a dialogue to co-construct knowledge
  • by Stiphy “ Social” makes trails visible..
  • and shows where to do go
  • Got issues?
    • Interoperability of user-generated metadata (e.g. tags, ratings, annotations, …)
    • Data-portability
    • Attention Profile Markup Language
    • Create profiles of repository's “attention”
  • Profiling LOR based on users' interest
    • This is my APML file. We could also have one for a LOR.
  • social bookmarks Metadata LOM tags folksonomy social tagging multi-linguality social classification thanks ! for your attention learning resources user communities discover resources and items questions ? teachers social navigation social traces paths , trails flock