Folksonomies: a bottom-up social categorization system


Published on

The first presentation about collaborative tagging i did

Published in: Technology, Education
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Folksonomies: a bottom-up social categorization system

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