Taxonomy Directed Folksonomies
Intergrating use tagging and controlled vocabularies for Australian education networks.
by Sarah Hayman and Nick Lothian
This article taught me quite a bit about tagging and folksonomies. Before reading this, I did not understand the term folksonomy and thought tagging was simply naming pictures or articles. After reading the article, I understand folksonomy and have learned about different tagging terms such tag clouds, machine tagging etc. The following is a resume of the what I learned in the article.
Definitions:
Tagging- adding keywords to a digital object such as a website, videoclip etc. to catogorize it.
Folksonomy- a collection of user tags created by an individual for personal use. The word is a combination of the words fold and taxonomy.
Taxonomy-
This paper discusses the challenges faced in using controlled vocabularies in the Web 2.0 world. The question discussed is: “ Can people balance folksonomies and controlled vocabularies to help communities of users find and share information and resources most relevant to them?”
I agree with Education Network Australia recognition that formal thesaurus cannot keep pace with user needs. Technology is for ever changing and therefore vocabulary associated with technology is also always changing.
For this reason the ENA is interested in exploiting the power of folksonomies.
The ENA has created a concept project using Taxonomy-Directed Folksonomy. This would be a taxonomy from the Austraina education sector where terms for taggins can be suggested. The folksonomy will show gaps in coverage and help monitor new terms and usage to improve and develop formal taxonomies.
TAGGING
Although tagging is not a new concept to librarians, it is new to the general public and are now made public and shared. Tagging is done differently at different website. Some examples of internet sites that I use that use tagging are: Delicious, Librarything, and Flikr. When tagging on these sites, users use their own words. Users can also add their own tags to already tagged resources. Then one can use these words as indexes to find their posted items. It is up to the person posting the information to decide if it will be public or private. If the indexes are public, then the tags can be searched by all users and thus a folksonomy is created.
Sometimes tagging is not done by users, but by experts. If this is the case the result will be displayed as a tag cloud. Surf the News.com is an example of a site that uses such an approach. The data is shown for the last 30 days of the story and the most assigned topics are large and read; those least used are small and gray. This, however is not folksonomy.
Developing an application that will take RSS feeds and create tag clouds out of keywords in the feeds is another approach to tagging. RSS feeds from the Washington Post website are built into tag clouds from keywords on NewsCloud. This is revered to as machine tagging.
ZoomColuds allows people to create tag clouds. A website owner can put tags on a website and provide users to figure out what are mentioned in the website more often. These tags can also be made public or private. Some people, like me, make their tags public, but choose private words that only a select few will know them and use them. For me, my tags are designed to be shared by only people that I know. According to this article, this is the same in many cases. This is a folksonomy, but only for a restricted group.
FOLKSONOMY
This is a collection of tags made by the user. Tags may be reused many times. The writers of this study were keen to see what terms users chose, how they are used and organized, as well as what new vocabularies or taxonomies will be invented.
Many benefits to tagging and folksonomies exist:
They are multidimensional, users can use words and concepts that have meanings and importance to them, they can be shared, they are quick and simple to do, social tagging develops communities, they help people stay organized.
I have found all of these advantages to be true, however when one begins to tag, it is not always fast and simple. It does become easier to do the more tagging you do.
Along with advantages, everything has disadvantages. This is the same for folksonomies:
Different words can be used for the same tag, or the same word can be used for different concepts.
Tags with personal meaning are not used often and can be of no use to others.
Tags can change as new trends evolve. For example, weblog, blogging etc.
Tags can be a mixture of forms, formats, etc.
Tags may need to be only a single word and spelling rules do not apply.
Some tagging systems can be spammed.
Tags may represent a dominant view and discourage usage of less popular concepts.
Tagging is not controlled and no formal system exists.
As a Teacher-Librarian, the University of Pennsylvania’s system that allows students to tag catalogue items is intriguing. Teachers and students could benefit from being able to organize books into tags according to units, essay topics, research projects etc. Although a social networking system such as Ann Arbor District Library’s SOPAC sounds useful, it does sound like quite a bit of work and rate, review and comment on collections on a Library Wiki or Blog. At this point in time, that would be what I would do for building a social networking system seems like more than I can handle.
The paper also describes education.au’s myedna, a service where resources can be shared, customized and managed. It will aim to “make the best use of collaborative technologies and philosophies.”
This is a fantastic idea. It is like a place shopping stop for educators. This would be extremely helpful as one will be able to easily find Web 2.0 uses in the educational system.
The program will also have users enter their own tags for resources. While typing a tag, a thesaurus will be available to suggest terms that match the term the person has entered.
Although it is still in the developmental stage, the creators hope to collate the tags and then produce a tag cloud. The collection of tags will be a
“folksonomy that has been directed by a taxonomy.” The creators would also develop a way of giving users information about the tags that they are thinking of choosing so that they can see related tags, notes or guidelines of usage.
The folksonomy created would provide information about the tags, the items tagged and the peopled doing the tagging. This is valuable information because people would like to use useful terms for their tags. What is the use of writing a tag that is not useful? Knowing which items are of value it also an important piece of information. People like to read articles, or search through lesson plans that they find of value to them. Just like people like to read certain authors or watch movies by a particular director, educators like to follow lesson suggestions created by certain people. Thus, providing information about the people doing the tagging will be important.
Web 2.0 concepts are still new to many of the educators on my staff. If there was a website that provided them with information on using new concepts in their classrooms, they may be more willing to try some of the new items. Myedna seems to be trying to fulfill this need, and will be an invaluable resource to them.