Warning:
JavaScript is turned OFF. None of the links on this page will work until it is reactivated.
If you need help turning JavaScript On, click here.
This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: lit_review, folksonomy like dublin core, is flat An important aspect of a folksonomy is that it comprises terms in a flat namespace - that is, there is no hierarchy, and no directly specified parent-child or sibling relationships between these terms. It generates "related" tags automatically, which cluster tags based on common URLs. This is unlike formal taxonomies and classification schemes where there are "multiple kind of explicit relationships between terms" (Mathes, 2004)., narrow described The narrow folksonomy, which a tool like Flickr represents, provides benefit in tagging objects that are not easily searchable or have no other means of using text to describe or find the object. The narrow folksonomy is done by one or a few people providing tags that the person uses to get back to that information. The tags, unlike in the broad folksonomy, are singular in nature (only one tag with the term is used as compared to 13 people in the broad folksonomy using the same tag). Often in the narrow folksonomy the person creating the object is providing one or more of the tags to get things started. The goals and uses of the narrow folksonomy are different than the broad, but still very helpful as more than one person can describe the one object. In the narrow the tags are directly associated with the object. Also with the narrow there is little way of really knowing how the tags are consumed or what portion of the people using the object would call it what, therefore it is not quite as helpful as finding emerging vocabulary or emergent descriptions. We do find that tags used to describe are also used for grouping, which is particularly visible and relevant in Flickr, citation chains from Tennis Beghtol, C. (2003). Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery: relationships between “professional” and “naïve” classifications. Knowledge Organization 30: 64-73., Comparing social tagging and subject cataloguing; this paper identifies the points of similarity and difference that obtain between these two kinds of information organization frameworks. nice quotes Social tagging does not have a textbook manifestation. The best we can do to attribute prescriptive manifestation to social tagging is to look at purposes of systems. Tagging systems are built to enable: sharing and managing citations, photos, and web pages. However, much of the sharing is done through observing someone else’s personal tagging practices or through natural language (tag) use. Some of the tags used in tagging systems are idiosyncratic and only meaningful to the individual’s interaction with the material indexed. As a result, tagging systems have tags like “todo”, “tobuy”, “want”, “don’t have”, and “7.20.06 AIDS Vaccine - Design.Immunogenicity.Efficacy.” These tags reflect significance in relation to tasks (buying, etc.) and sorting or differentiating between other tags (dates appended to AIDS Vaccine…)., INFORMATION DESCRIPTION AND DISCOVERY METHOD USING CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURES IN WEB Mohammad Nasir Uddin', Muhammad Mezbah-ul-Islam2 , Kazi Mostak Gausul Haque2 abstract This study suggests using these three approaches in the appropriate context to ensure the optimum use of corporate information., narrow categorises folksonomies broad, Social Graphic Tagging for Semantic Metadata and a Case Study on Consensus Discovery Jie Yang and Mitsuru Ishizuka abstract The lack of semantic metadata is becoming a barrier for the in-depth study and wide adoption of Semantic Web. At the same time, folksonomy draws more and more attention as a promising source of semantic metadata...In this paper the authors propose a concept model that supportsmetadata generation by extending the ideas from folksonomy. A semantic layer is specified in the model that comprises three types of semantics varying from simple to complex to support different kinds of semantic interoperations., Social Bookmarking Tools (I) A General Review Tony Hammond, Timo Hannay, Ben Lund, and Joanna Scott definition Tags generally produce a flat namespace, rather than the hierarchical structures that a taxonomy or other formal classification system usually provides., Social Bookmarking Tools (I) A General Review Tony Hammond, Timo Hannay, Ben Lund, and Joanna Scott why develop But even while search engines were becoming ever more prescient at second-guessing user goals and managing user expectations, another development was beginning to cook up in the background. These would become the social link managers, with links not randomly discovered or crawled by robots and spiders, but registered, tagged and rated by users for their own benefit, and made available to other users [n9]. Robot wisdom was increasingly being challenged by the 'buzz latency' [11] that such a shared personal recommendation system creates., The Language of Folksonomies: What Tags Reveal About User Classification Csaba Veres abstract However, none has addressed the deep nature of folksonomies. What is the nature of a tag? Where does it come from? How is it related to a resource? In this paper we present a study in which the linguistic properties of folksonomies reveal them to contain, on the one hand, tags that are similar to standard categories in taxonomies. But on the other hand, they contain additional tags to describe class properties. The implications of the findings for the relationship between folksonomy and ontology are discussed., sampling dataset from del.icio.us tag kinds aboutness, Piggy Bank: Experience the Semantic Web Inside Your Web Browser David Huynh1, Stefano Mazzocchi2, David Karger1 neat idea use tools to tag and relate tags - if shared, add to semantic web, SOCIAL TAGGING AND THE NEXT STEPS FOR INDEXING Joseph T. Tennis compares tagging and indexing comparative table:structures, Explaining and Showing Broad and Narrow Folksonomies :: Personal InfoCloud. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from http://www.personalinfocloud.com/2005/02/explaining_and_.html categorises folksonomies broad, Social Graphic Tagging for Semantic Metadata and a Case Study on Consensus Discovery Jie Yang and Mitsuru Ishizuka build semantic web using other people's work, Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems 198 Journal of Information Science, 32 (2) 2006, pp. 198–208 © CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551506062337 Scott A. Golder and Bernardo A. Huberman analysis sampling dataset from del.icio.us, Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems 198 Journal of Information Science, 32 (2) 2006, pp. 198–208 © CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551506062337 Scott A. Golder and Bernardo A. Huberman conclusion/further research We have observed that collaborative tagging users exhibit a great variety in their sets of tags; some users have many tags, and others have few. Tags themselves vary in frequency of use, as well as in what they describe. Nevertheless, because stable patterns emerge in tag proportions, minority opinions can coexist alongside extremely popular ones without disrupting the nearly stable consensus choices made by many users. While this study was focused on Delicious, we expect that these findings will apply to other, similar tagging systems. The prevalence of tagging with a very large number of tags and according to information intrinsic to the tagger demonstrates that a significant amount of tagging, if not all, is done for personal use rather than public benefit. Nevertheless, even information tagged for personal use can benefit other users, lists domain specific folksonomies eg PennTags, Social Graphic Tagging for Semantic Metadata and a Case Study on Consensus Discovery Jie Yang and Mitsuru Ishizuka tag model proposed model, Social Bookmarking Tools (I) A General Review Tony Hammond, Timo Hannay, Ben Lund, and Joanna Scott purpose This paper reviews some current initiatives, as of early 2005, in providing public link management applications on the Web – utilities that are often referred to under the general moniker of 'social bookmarking tools'. There are a couple of things going on here: 1) server-side software aimed specifically at managing links with, crucially, a strong, social networking flavour, and 2) an unabashedly open and unstructured approach to tagging, or user classification, of those links.