1 / 12

Semantic Web Technologies

Semantic Web Technologies . Brief Readings Discussion Class work: Research topics and Project discussion Presentations. Explaining Folksonomies. Folksonomies are when you describe something, primarily for yourself For organizing For re-finding Folksonomies are (mostly) flat (no hierarchy)

garin
Download Presentation

Semantic Web Technologies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Semantic Web Technologies • Brief Readings Discussion • Class work: Research topics and Project discussion • Presentations

  2. Explaining Folksonomies • Folksonomies are when you describe something, primarily for yourself • For organizing • For re-finding • Folksonomies are (mostly) flat (no hierarchy) • But others can take advantage of your work • Because they think the same way • Because they want to understand or find something semantically • Letting others define categories & classify information (for you & others) • Does time help or hinder folksonomies? • Does the beauty pageant judging effect help or hurt?

  3. Kinds of Folksonomies • Broad - a lot of people are describing one object • Delicious or Shadows • Depth of descriptions if a lot of people describe (tag) the object • Lots of (potential) disagreement, but still plenty of descriptions • Social status & sharing bootstrap the process • Can or will people learn & use a descriptive vocabulary? • Narrow - one person describing (usually their own) object • Flickr, Metafilter or your own Web pages/blog posts • Depth of descriptions more idiosyncratic • Fewer descriptions, but more focused (personal) • Does personal metadata become useful to others? • Which kinds of objects are best for the two different kinds of folksonomies?

  4. Social Folksonomies • Can there be any other kind? • How long can sharing last? • Can people disagree? • Is all tagging considered building a folksonomy? • Does the ad hoc nature help folksonomies grow or hurt their widespread use? • How would you use a folksonomy? • Do you use one? • Do you tag things?

  5. Order out of Chaos • “We used to rely on philosophers to put the world in order. Now we’ve got information architects. But they’re not doing the work - we are.” • IA is throwing the party, but you have to show up & build the barn. • Is this and end-run around experts? • Google as folksonomy user? • Machines that automate classification & social software that makes us willing • What about personal, automatically-assigned metadata? • Would you rely on a folksonomy first to find something? • How useful is it to keep humans involved in the classification?

  6. Cooperative Classification? • User-generated metadata • Users working for themselves or other users • Experts do a fine job of classification • There’s not enough experts • Experts disagree • There’s too much information • How fast can experts learn to describe things for beginners? • Users not part of the process • Users have to learn the experts vocabulary

  7. Cooperative Classification (2) • Make object classification tools easier for experts • Verify rather than create classifications? • Include metadata at object creation by authors • Let users of objects create & share metadata • Show popular tags as a way to show value of the system (& sharing) • Teach people the tagging vocabulary • People are using tags in clever ways • Tags as verbs: post & buy • Tags as prompting: shop & read • Tags as votes • Me, happy, cute, sometaithurts • Should experts learn from these vocabularies too?

  8. Cooperative Classification Issues • Wide varieties of tag terms (“filtering) • Acronyms • Spaces & Multiple Words • Spaces_multiple_words • Case • Synonyms • Face value tags vs. abstract ideas

  9. Why Folksonomies Work • Almost no barrier to entry • Low cognitive costs (most of the time) • Supports browsing and searching • But mostly browsing • Feedback • Learning • Sharing & Community building • Can you think of other reasons why folksonomies work?

  10. Ontology is Overrated • We don’t understand categorization very well • Digital objects turn regular classification on its side • What kind of “ontology” are we talking about? • Canonical, never changing? • Philosophical, AI, Semantic Web? • Categorization has its costs • Managing costs (shelf space) • Managing time (experts & users) • Aliases “@” make us think about what is real • My perspective is real, of course! • Are we tired of experts telling us what to do & leaning towards being self-centered? • So we need the “Shelf” back? • Metaphorically, we just might • Maybe we just need a new, better metaphor?

  11. Overrated (again) • We need adaptive, multi-faceted classification • Digital objects defy structure (& tradition) • I mean lots of facets • Just in Time use of classification is a Google search • But it can’t always be right… can it? • Who can read our minds but ourselves? • Again, is this selfish? • Yes, and lots of people are getting rich on that. • “The Only Group that can categorize everything is everybody” • Links everywhere with URIs for everything

  12. Tagging Advantages • Market Logic • Users & Time are Core Attributes • Signal Loss from Expression • Post Hoc Filtering • Merged from URLs, not categories • Bottom up classification • Merges are probabilistic, not binary • Will “Organic Organization” win?

More Related