1 / 24

Folksonomy: TechTalk

Folksonomy: TechTalk. Daniel Gelaw Alemneh University of North Texas, Information Technology Services, Digital Projects Unit July 2nd, 2008. Background. Document Representation. Information Need. Document. Query. Match.

malorie-scholz
Download Presentation

Folksonomy: TechTalk

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. Folksonomy: TechTalk Daniel Gelaw AlemnehUniversity of North Texas, Information Technology Services, Digital Projects Unit July 2nd, 2008

  2. Background . Document Representation Information Need Document Query Match Bates, M. J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13(5), 407-424.

  3. . .Total Sites Across All Domains August 1995 - June 2008

  4. . • “The new Web is a very different thing. It is a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter.” • “…It’s a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It is about cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people’s network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It’s about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes.” • OCLC’s report: Sharing, privacy and Trust in our Networked World, Oct. 2007: http://www.oclc.org/reports/pdfs/sharing.pdf

  5. Trends • Huge multimedia digital libraries instead of documents • Complex retrieval systems instead of matching queries and document representations • Visualization of the information space instead of a ranked list of search results • Human information behavior instead of information need

  6. Trends… • User as creator, annotator, indexer, searcher, and eventual user of his/her content instead of authors andprofessional indexers • User’s language and vocabulary instead of controlled vocabulary • Tags and folksonomies instead of subject headings, taxonomies and classification system

  7. Folksonomy • Folksonomy is a user-generated system that allows users to tag their favorite digital resources with their chosen natural-language words or phrases. • Thomas Vander Wal is credited with first coining of the term in 2005, when he mashed up the words “taxonomy” and “folk” • “result of personal free tagging of information and objects (anything with a URL) for one's own retrieval”

  8. Why create tags? • To organize information • To support search • To find them again later • To discover website and share them with others • To organize a large collection into categories in tune with the user’s own idiosyncratic mental model • To get exposure and traffic • To take advantage of functionality • As a way of voicing their opinions • To play a game…

  9. User-Based Tagging • del.icio.us is a social bookmarking site. • Instead of saving a Webpage link in your “Favorites” (IE) or “Bookmarks” (Firefox) folder, you save it to your del.icio.us page.) • 43Things is like a giant, global to-do list. • You can add all of those things that you have been meaning to do, • Flickris a digital image storage/management site. • It is a place for you to organize all of your photos into albums, tag them with descriptive keywords, and view others’ images • Technorati allows you to perform searches on blog content.

  10. .

  11. Advantages • Folksonomies are: • Inclusive, democratic and self-moderating • Current • Non-Binary • Predisposed to discovering unknown/unexpected resources • Folksonomies engender community • Folksonomies offer a low cost alternative • Folksonomies offer usability • expression of the direct information needs and desires of the user • offer insight into user behavior

  12. Weaknesses • There has been considerable debate concerning folksnomies flaws: • Folksonomies have no synonym control. • Folksonomies have a lack of precision. • Folksonomies lack hierarchy. • Folksonomies have a lack of recall. • Folksonomies are susceptible to malicious tag

  13. Folksonomies in Libraries • Many libraries use social software to supplement their existing systems: • PennTags, The University of Pennsylvania library tagging system • allows users to bookmark and tag websites as well as library cataloging records. • MBooks Collection Builder, University of Michigan’s new interface. • allows users to create their own collections and view public collections created by others. • Enhancements planned to include MTagger

  14. Folksonomies … • CiteULike, a social bookmarking site for academic citations • Allows user to use tags to store, organize, and share the scholarly papers they are reading. • allows users to export their libraries to BibTex or Endnote • Conntoea, references management tool • Allows users to find, save , and customize their libraries • Allow users to export or import their references

  15. Challenges and Opportunities • Digital Rights Management • “We dream of a world with free access to content. In the meantime, there’s DRM.” • Metadata Driven access

  16. Challenges • Nature of information creation, organization, retrieval, use, and preservation is becoming more complex • Aspects of data stewardship throughout the data lifecycle. • Changing users’ roles • Everyone is a data provider , a search provider , and a metadata harvester • There is no single model that explains the behavior of users who create, index, search, & use their own content • Free & uncontrolled users’ language and vocabulary • Users may lack domain knowledge and/or knowledge about system

  17. Opportunities • Users are willing to provide descriptions of their own and others’ contents • Ranganathan’s 2nd law could be changed to: “Every user his/her overview of the document collection” (Abebe 2007) • Rich data to study their tagging behavior • Design of browsing interfaces could be informed by research on social tags • Designers of indexing tools & systems have a real opportunity to implement user-centered indexing • Browsing facilitates searching by users with a vague idea about their need

  18. Emerging concepts & agendas • Next generation catalogs • RDA; FRBR; cataloging in hybrid & digital libraries; changes in basic cataloging work and catalogers' responsibilities; emerging perceptions of cataloging quality; how end users' expectations and behaviors affect cataloging norms; metadata records and elements in different contexts; etc. • Repositories are being deployed in a variety of settings and across a range of scales (subject, national, regional, institutional, project, lab, personal). • The technical, managerial, practical and theoretical issues that arise from diverse applications of repositories in the increasingly pervasive information environment.

  19. Implications • A number of professional groups are evaluating Web 2.0 tools and assessimpacts and metrics relating to using the Web as a library‘s core service space. • The theme of the 2007 ASIS&T conference, addressed the entire phenomenon associated with Web 2.0: • -When users become active producers and contributors in the information sphere, what are the implications for [library and] information science? • -How are social computing and Web 2.0 trends affecting the work of information professionals? • -What current research and applications are shaping future directions

  20. Implications … • CHART Conference 2007 (UK) alsoreflected upon the Web 2.0 issues: • What is the future of such "top-down"‚ cultural institutions in the age of "bottom-up"‚ access to knowledge and cultural artifacts through Web 2:0 technologies? • Will such institutions respond to this threat to their cultural hegemony by resistance or adaptation? • How can a cultural heritage institution appeal to an audience which has unprecedented access to cultural resources? • How can institutions predicated on a cultural economy of scarcity compete in an emerging state of cultural abundance? • A Special issue of Webology, (Vol. 5, No. 3, 2008): • Folksonomies, the Web and Search Engines

  21. Some things are timeless • Ranganathan’s 1931 five laws of LS • “Application of Ranganathan's Laws to the Web” Alireza Noruzi’s 2004 versions: • 1. Web resources are for use. • 2. Every user his or her web resource. • 3. Every web resource its user. • 4. Save the time of the user. • 5. The Web is a growing organism.

  22. References & Web Sites Consulted • Bates, M. J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13(5), 407-424. • CiteULike: http://www.citeulike.org/ • Connotea: www.connotea.org • Cormode, G. and Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0; First Monday, 13(6). Retrieved July 1st, 2008 from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2125/1972 • del.icio.us: http://del.icio.us/ • Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/ • 43Things: http://www.43things.com/ • Gruber, T. (2005). Ontology of Folksonomy: A Mash-up of Apples and Oranges. Retrieved July 1st, 2008, from http://tomgruber.org/writing/ontology-of-folksonomy.htm • Netcraft (2008). June 2008 Web Server Survey. Retrieved July 1st, 2008 from http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html • Noruzi, A. (2004). "Application of Ranganathan's Laws to the Web." Webology, 1(2), Article 8. Retrieved July 1st, 2008 from http://www.webology.ir/2004/v1n2/a8.html • OCLC (2007). Sharing, privacy and Trust in our Networked World. Retrieved July 1st, 2008 from http://www.oclc.org/reports/pdfs/sharing.pdf

  23. References… Peterson, E. (2006, November). “Beneath the metadata: Some philosophical problems with folksonomies” D-lib Magazine, 12(11). Retrieved July 1st, 2008, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november06/peterson/11peterson.html Spiteri, L. F. (2007). “The structure and form of folksonomy tags: The road to the public library catalog Information,” Technology & Libraries, 26, 13-25. TechSmith, Co. (2008). “UX 2.0: Any User, Any Time, Any Channel.” Retrieved July 1st, 2008 from: http://download.techsmith.com/morae/docs/UserExperience2_0.pdf Technorati: http://www.technorati.com/ Tony Hammonds, et al. "Social bookmarking tools (I), a general review." D-Lib Magazine 11(4). November 10, 2006 from <doi:10.1045/april2005-hammond>. University of Pennsylvania, (2005). “What is PennTags?” Retrieved July 1st, 2008 from http://tags.library.upenn.edu/help/what_is_penntags University of Michigan (2008) “MBooks Collection Builder” and “MTagger.” Retrieved July 1, 2008 from http://sdr.lib.umich.edu/cgi/mb & http://www.lib.umich.edu/mtagger/ Vander W. T. (2004).  “Folksonomy”. Retrieved July 1st, 2008 from http://vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html. Vander W.T. (2007). Explaining and Showing Broad and Narrow Folksonomies. Retrieved July 1st, 2008 from http://www.personalinfocloud.com/2005/02/explaining_and_.html

  24. . Thank you!

More Related