Folksonomy

Last updated

Folksonomy is a classification system in which end users apply public tags to online items, typically to make those items easier for themselves or others to find later. Over time, this can give rise to a classification system based on those tags and how often they are applied or searched for, in contrast to a taxonomic classification designed by the owners of the content and specified when it is published. [1] [2] This practice is also known as collaborative tagging, [3] [4] social classification, social indexing, and social tagging. Folksonomy was originally "the result of personal free tagging of information [...] for one's own retrieval", [5] but online sharing and interaction expanded it into collaborative forms. Social tagging is the application of tags in an open online environment where the tags of other users are available to others. Collaborative tagging (also known as group tagging) is tagging performed by a group of users. This type of folksonomy is commonly used in cooperative and collaborative projects such as research, content repositories, and social bookmarking.

Contents

The term was coined by Thomas Vander Wal in 2004 [5] [6] [7] as a portmanteau of folk and taxonomy . Folksonomies became popular as part of social software applications such as social bookmarking and photograph annotation that enable users to collectively classify and find information via shared tags. Some websites include tag clouds as a way to visualize tags in a folksonomy. [8]

Folksonomies can be used for K–12 education, business, and higher education. More specifically, folksonomies may be implemented for social bookmarking, teacher resource repositories, e-learning systems, collaborative learning, collaborative research, professional development and teaching. Wikipedia is also a prime example of folksonomy. [9] [ better source needed ][ clarification needed ]

Benefits and disadvantages

Folksonomies are a trade-off between traditional centralized classification and no classification at all, [10] and have several advantages: [11] [12] [13]

There are several disadvantages with the use of tags and folksonomies as well, [14] and some of the advantages (see above) can lead to problems. For example, the simplicity in tagging can result in poorly applied tags. [15] Further, while controlled vocabularies are exclusionary by nature, [16] tags are often ambiguous and overly personalized. [17] Users apply tags to documents in many different ways and tagging systems also often lack mechanisms for handling synonyms, acronyms and homonyms, and they also often lack mechanisms for handling spelling variations such as misspellings, singular/plural form, conjugated and compound words. Some tagging systems do not support tags consisting of multiple words, resulting in tags like "viewfrommywindow". Sometimes users choose specialized tags or tags without meaning to others.

Elements and types

A folksonomy emerges when users tag content or information, such as web pages, photos, videos, podcasts, tweets, scientific papers and others. Strohmaier et al. [18] elaborate the concept: the term "tagging" refers to a "voluntary activity of users who are annotating resources with term-so-called 'tags' – freely chosen from an unbounded and uncontrolled vocabulary". Others explain tags as an unstructured textual label [19] or keywords, [17] and that they appear as a simple form of metadata. [20]

Folksonomies consist of three basic entities: users, tags, and resources. Users create tags to mark resources such as: web pages, photos, videos, and podcasts. These tags are used to manage, categorize and summarize online content. This collaborative tagging system also uses these tags as a way to index information, facilitate searches and navigate resources. Folksonomy also includes a set of URLs that are used to identify resources that have been referred to by users of different websites. These systems also include category schemes that have the ability to organize tags at different levels of granularity. [21]

Vander Wal identifies two types of folksonomy: broad and narrow. [22] A broad folksonomy arises when multiple users can apply the same tag to an item, providing information about which tags are the most popular. A narrow folksonomy occurs when users, typically fewer in number and often including the item's creator, tag an item with tags that can each be applied only once. While both broad and narrow folksonomies enable the searchability of content by adding an associated word or phrase to an object, a broad folksonomy allows for sorting based on the popularity of each tag, as well as the tracking of emerging trends in tag usage and developing vocabularies. [22]

An example of a broad folksonomy is del.icio.us, a website where users can tag any online resource they find relevant with their own personal tags. The photo-sharing website Flickr is an oft-cited example of a narrow folksonomy.

Folksonomy versus taxonomy

'Taxonomy' refers to a hierarchical categorization in which relatively well-defined classes are nested under broader categories. A folksonomy establishes categories (each tag is a category) without stipulating or necessarily deriving a hierarchical structure of parent-child relations among different tags. (Work has been done on techniques for deriving at least loose hierarchies from clusters of tags. [23] )

Supporters of folksonomies claim that they are often preferable to taxonomies because folksonomies democratize the way information is organized, they are more useful to users because they reflect current ways of thinking about domains, and they express more information about domains. [24] Critics claim that folksonomies are messy and thus harder to use, and can reflect transient trends that may misrepresent what is known about a field.

An empirical analysis of the complex dynamics of tagging systems, published in 2007, [25] has shown that consensus around stable distributions and shared vocabularies does emerge, even in the absence of a central controlled vocabulary. For content to be searchable, it should be categorized and grouped. While this was believed to require commonly agreed on sets of content describing tags (much like keywords of a journal article), some research has found that in large folksonomies common structures also emerge on the level of categorizations. [26] Accordingly, it is possible to devise mathematical models of collaborative tagging that allow for translating from personal tag vocabularies (personomies) to the vocabulary shared by most users. [27]

Folksonomy is unrelated to folk taxonomy, a cultural practice that has been widely documented in anthropological and folkloristic work. Folk taxonomies are culturally supplied, intergenerationally transmitted, and relatively stable classification systems that people in a given culture use to make sense of the entire world around them (not just the Internet). [21]

The study of the structuring or classification of folksonomy is termed folksontology. [28] This branch of ontology deals with the intersection between highly structured taxonomies or hierarchies and loosely structured folksonomy, asking what best features can be taken by both for a system of classification. The strength of flat-tagging schemes is their ability to relate one item to others like it. Folksonomy allows large disparate groups of users to collaboratively label massive, dynamic information systems. The strength of taxonomies are their browsability: users can easily start from more generalized knowledge and target their queries towards more specific and detailed knowledge. [29] Folksonomy looks to categorize tags and thus create browsable spaces of information that are easy to maintain and expand.

Social tagging for knowledge acquisition

Social tagging for knowledge acquisition is the specific use of tagging for finding and re-finding specific content for an individual or group. Social tagging systems differ from traditional taxonomies in that they are community-based systems lacking the traditional hierarchy of taxonomies. Rather than a top-down approach, social tagging relies on users to create the folksonomy from the bottom up. [30]

Common uses of social tagging for knowledge acquisition include personal development for individual use and collaborative projects. Social tagging is used for knowledge acquisition in secondary, post-secondary, and graduate education as well as personal and business research. The benefits of finding/re-finding source information are applicable to a wide spectrum of users. Tagged resources are located through search queries rather than searching through a more traditional file folder system. [31] The social aspect of tagging also allows users to take advantage of metadata from thousands of other users. [30]

Users choose individual tags for stored resources. These tags reflect personal associations, categories, and concepts. All of which are individual representations based on meaning and relevance to that individual. The tags, or keywords, are designated by users. Consequently, tags represent a user's associations corresponding to the resource. Commonly tagged resources include videos, photos, articles, websites, and email. [32] Tags are beneficial for a couple of reasons. First, they help to structure and organize large amounts of digital resources in a manner that makes them easily accessible when users attempt to locate the resource at a later time. The second aspect is social in nature, that is to say that users may search for new resources and content based on the tags of other users. Even the act of browsing through common tags may lead to further resources for knowledge acquisition. [30]

Tags that occur more frequently with specific resources are said to be more strongly connected. Furthermore, tags may be connected to each other. This may be seen in the frequency in which they co-occur. The more often they co-occur, the stronger the connection. Tag clouds are often utilized to visualize connectivity between resources and tags. Font size increases as the strength of association increases. [32]

Tags show interconnections of concepts that were formerly unknown to a user. Therefore, a user's current cognitive constructs may be modified or augmented by the metadata information found in aggregated social tags. This process promotes knowledge acquisition through cognitive irritation and equilibration. This theoretical framework is known as the co-evolution model of individual and collective knowledge. [32]

The co-evolution model focuses on cognitive conflict in which a learner's prior knowledge and the information received from the environment are dissimilar to some degree. [30] [32] When this incongruence occurs, the learner must work through a process cognitive equilibration in order to make personal cognitive constructs and outside information congruent. According to the coevolution model, this may require the learner to modify existing constructs or simply add to them. [30] The additional cognitive effort promotes information processing which in turn allows individual learning to occur. [32]

Examples

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Semantic Web</span> Extension of the Web to facilitate data exchange

The Semantic Web, sometimes known as Web 3.0, is an extension of the World Wide Web through standards set by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The goal of the Semantic Web is to make Internet data machine-readable.

Web annotation can refer to online annotations of web resources such as web pages or parts of them, or a set of W3C standards developed for this purpose. The term can also refer to the creations of annotations on the World Wide Web and it has been used in this sense for the annotation tool INCEpTION, formerly WebAnno. This is a general feature of several tools for annotation in natural language processing or in the philologies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Collaborative filtering</span> Algorithm

Collaborative filtering (CF) is a technique used by recommender systems. Collaborative filtering has two senses, a narrow one and a more general one.

A recommender system, or a recommendation system, is a subclass of information filtering system that provides suggestions for items that are most pertinent to a particular user. Recommender systems are particularly useful when an individual needs to choose an item from a potentially overwhelming number of items that a service may offer.

Social bookmarking is an online service which allows users to add, annotate, edit, and share bookmarks of web documents. Many online bookmark management services have launched since 1996; Delicious, founded in 2003, popularized the terms "social bookmarking" and "tagging". Tagging is a significant feature of social bookmarking systems, allowing users to organize their bookmarks and develop shared vocabularies known as folksonomies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas Vander Wal</span>

Thomas Vander Wal is an information architect best known for coining the term "folksonomy". He is also known for initiating the term "infocloud". His work has primarily dealt with the Web and with information design and structure especially in the context of social technology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tag (metadata)</span> Keyword assigned to information

In information systems, a tag is a keyword or term assigned to a piece of information. This kind of metadata helps describe an item and allows it to be found again by browsing or searching. Tags are generally chosen informally and personally by the item's creator or by its viewer, depending on the system, although they may also be chosen from a controlled vocabulary.

Cold start is a potential problem in computer-based information systems which involves a degree of automated data modelling. Specifically, it concerns the issue that the system cannot draw any inferences for users or items about which it has not yet gathered sufficient information.

The concept of the Social Semantic Web subsumes developments in which social interactions on the Web lead to the creation of explicit and semantically rich knowledge representations. The Social Semantic Web can be seen as a Web of collective knowledge systems, which are able to provide useful information based on human contributions and which get better as more people participate. The Social Semantic Web combines technologies, strategies and methodologies from the Semantic Web, social software and the Web 2.0.

Social information processing is "an activity through which collective human actions organize knowledge." It is the creation and processing of information by a group of people. As an academic field Social Information Processing studies the information processing power of networked social systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">GroupLens Research</span> Computer science research lab

GroupLens Research is a human–computer interaction research lab in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities specializing in recommender systems and online communities. GroupLens also works with mobile and ubiquitous technologies, digital libraries, and local geographic information systems.

Collaborative search engines (CSE) are Web search engines and enterprise searches within company intranets that let users combine their efforts in information retrieval (IR) activities, share information resources collaboratively using knowledge tags, and allow experts to guide less experienced people through their searches. Collaboration partners do so by providing query terms, collective tagging, adding comments or opinions, rating search results, and links clicked of former (successful) IR activities to users having the same or a related information need.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">ApexKB</span>

ApexKB, is a discontinued free and open-source script for collaborative search and knowledge management powered by a shared enterprise bookmarking engine that is a fork of KnowledgebasePublisher. It was publicly announced on 29 September 2008. A stable version of Jumper was publicly released under the GNU General Public License and made available on SourceForge on 26 March 2009.

Enterprise bookmarking is a method for Web 2.0 users to tag, organize, store, and search bookmarks of both web pages on the Internet and data resources stored in a distributed database or fileserver. This is done collectively and collaboratively in a process by which users add tag (metadata) and knowledge tags.

Collaborative tagging, also known as social tagging or folksonomy, allows users to apply public tags to online items, typically to make those items easier for themselves or others to find later. It has been argued that these tagging systems can provide navigational cues or "way-finders" for other users to explore information. The notion is that given that social tags are labels users create to represent topics extracted from online documents, the interpretation of these tags should allow other users to predict the contents of different documents efficiently. Social tags are arguably more important in exploratory search, in which the users may engage in iterative cycles of goal refinement and exploration of new information, and interpretation of information contents by others will provide useful cues for people to discover topics that are relevant.

Elium, previously referred to as Knowledge Plaza, is a Software as a Service used for enterprise knowledge sharing within organisations. It supports use cases for knowledge management, social bookmarking, document management, wikis and internal social network. It was initially designed as an information management tool for knowledge workers and is often used for collaborative research projects, market intelligence, information brokerage, etc.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taxonomy</span> Science of classification

Taxonomy is the practice and science of categorization or classification.

In web analytics, a session, or visit is a unit of measurement of a user's actions taken within a period of time or with regard to completion of a task. Sessions are also used in operational analytics and provision of user-specific recommendations. There are two primary methods used to define a session: time-oriented approaches based on continuity in user activity and navigation-based approaches based on continuity in a chain of requested pages.

Social navigation is a form of social computing introduced by Paul Dourish and Matthew Chalmers in 1994, who defined it as when "movement from one item to another is provoked as an artifact of the activity of another or a group of others". According to later research in 2002, "social navigation exploits the knowledge and experience of peer users of information resources" to guide users in the information space, and that it is becoming more difficult to navigate and search efficiently with all the digital information available from the World Wide Web and other sources. Studying others' navigational trails and understanding their behavior can help improve one's own search strategy by guiding them to make more informed decisions based on the actions of others.

Drama annotation is the process of annotating the metadata of a drama. Given a drama expressed in some medium, the process of metadata annotation identifies what are the elements that characterize the drama and annotates such elements in some metadata format. For example, in the sentence "Laertes and Polonius warn Ophelia to stay away from Hamlet." from the text Hamlet, the word "Laertes", which refers to a drama element, namely a character, will be annotated as "Char", taken from some set of metadata. This article addresses the drama annotation projects, with the sets of metadata and annotations proposed in the scientific literature, based markup languages and ontologies.

References

  1. ↑ Peters, Isabella (2009). "Folksonomies. Indexing and Retrieval in Web 2.0". Berlin: De Gruyter Saur . ISBN   978-3-598-25179-5. (isabella-peters.de)
  2. ↑ Pink, Daniel H. (11 December 2005). "Folksonomy". New York Times . Retrieved 14 July 2009.
  3. ↑ Lambiotte, R; Ausloos, M. (2005). Computational Science – ICCS 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 3993. pp. 1114–1117. arXiv: cs.DS/0512090 . doi:10.1007/11758532_152. ISBN   978-3-540-34383-7. S2CID   47144489.
  4. ↑ Borne, Kirk. "Collaborative Annotation for Scientific Data Discovery and Reuse". Bulletin of Association for Information Science and Technology. ASIS&T. Archived from the original on 5 March 2016. Retrieved 26 May 2016.
  5. 1 2 Vander Wal, Thomas (11 December 2005). "Folksonomy Coinage and Definition".
  6. ↑ Vander Wal, T. (2005). "Off the Top: Folksonomy Entries." Visited November 5, 2005. See also: Smith, Gene. "Atomiq: Folksonomy: social classification." Aug 3, 2004. Retrieved January 1, 2007.
  7. ↑ Origin of the term
  8. ↑ Lamere, Paul (June 2008). "Social Tagging And Music Information Retrieval". Journal of New Music Research. 37 (2): 101–114. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.492.2457 . doi:10.1080/09298210802479284. S2CID   17063867.
  9. ↑ Bryzgalin, E.A.; Voiskounsky, A.E.; Kozlovskiy, S.A. (1 September 2019). "Psychological Analysis of Practical Experience in "Wikipedia" Development". Sibirskiy Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal (73): 17–39. doi:10.17223/17267080/73/2. S2CID   210557805.
  10. ↑ Gupta, M.; Li, R.; Yin, Z.; Han, J. (2011). "An Overview of Social Tagging and Applications". In Aggarwal, C.C. (ed.). Social Network Data Analytics. Springer. pp. 447–497. Bibcode:2011snda.book..447G. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.724.2482 . doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-8462-3_16. ISBN   978-1-4419-8462-3.
  11. ↑ Quintarelli, E., Folksonomies: power to the people. 2005.
  12. ↑ Mathes, A. (2004). "Folksonomies — Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata". CiteSeerX   10.1.1.135.1000 .
  13. ↑ Wal, T.V. Folksonomy. 2007
  14. ↑ Kipp, M.E.; Campbell, D.G. (2006). "Patterns and Inconsistencies in Collaborative Tagging Systems: An Examination of Tagging Practices". Proc. Am. Soc. Info. Sci. Tech. 43: 1–18. doi:10.1002/meet.14504301178. hdl: 10150/105181 .
  15. ↑ Hayman, S. (2007). "Folksonomies and Tagging: New developments in social bookmarking". Proceedings of Ark Group Conference: Developing and Improving Classification Schemes, 2007, Sydney. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.138.8884 .
  16. ↑ Kroski, E., The Hive Mind: Folksonomies and User-Based Tagging. 2005
  17. 1 2 Guy, M.; Tonkin, E. (2006). "Folksonomies: Tidying up Tags?". D-Lib Magazine. 12 (1): 1–15. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.501.4598 . doi: 10.1045/january2006-guy .
  18. ↑ Strohmaier, M.; Körner, C.; Kern, R. (2012). "Understanding why users tag: A survey of tagging motivation literature and results from an empirical study". Journal of Web Semantics. 17 (C): 1–11. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.353.5120 . doi:10.1016/j.websem.2012.09.003. PMC   3587461 . PMID   23471473.
  19. ↑ Ames, Morgan; Naaman, Mor (2007). "Why We Tag: Motivations for Annotation in Mobile and Online Media". Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. pp. 971–980. doi:10.1145/1240624.1240772. ISBN   978-1-59593-593-9. S2CID   13039172.
  20. ↑ Brooks, C.H.; Montanez, N. (2006). "Improved Annotation of the Blogosphere via Autotagging and Hierarchical Clustering". Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM Press. pp. 625–632. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.78.5132 . doi:10.1145/1135777.1135869. ISBN   1-59593-323-9. S2CID   2838063.
  21. 1 2 Berlin, B. (2014) [1992]. Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton University Press. ISBN   978-1-4008-6259-7.
  22. 1 2 Vander Wal, Thomas. "Explaining and Showing Broad and Narrow Folksonomies" . Retrieved 2013-03-05.
  23. ↑ Laniado, David. "Using WordNet to turn a folksonomy into a hierarchy of concepts" (PDF). CEUR Workshop Proceedings. 314 (51). Retrieved 7 August 2015.
  24. ↑ Weinberger, David. "Folksonomy as Symbol". Joho the Blog. Retrieved 7 August 2015.
  25. ↑ Halpin, Harry; Robu, Valentin; Shepherd, Hana (2007). "The Complex Dynamics of Collaborative Tagging". Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM Press. pp. 211–220. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.78.5341 . doi:10.1145/1242572.1242602. ISBN   978-1-59593-654-7. S2CID   13935265.
  26. ↑ Robu, V.; Halpin, H.; Shepherd, H. (2009). "Emergence of consensus and shared vocabularies in collaborative tagging systems" (PDF). ACM Transactions on the Web. 3 (4). Article 14 pp 1–34. doi:10.1145/1594173.1594176. S2CID   3330929.
  27. ↑ Wetzker, R.; Zimmermann, C.; Bauckhage, C.; Albayrak, S. (2010). "I tag, you tag: translating tags for advanced user models". Proceedings of the Third ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM Press. pp. 71–80. doi:10.1145/1718487.1718497. ISBN   978-1-60558-889-6. S2CID   9144393.
  28. ↑ Into Ontologies; Van Damme, C.; Siorpaes, K. (2007). "Folksontology: An Integrated Approach for turning Folksonomies into Ontologies" (PDF). International Workshop on Bridging the Gap between Semantic Web and Web 2.0 (SemNet 2007), at the 4th European Semantic Web Conference. pp. 57–70. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.379.5516 .
  29. ↑ Trattner, C.; Körner, C.; Helic, D. (2011). "Enhancing the Navigability of Social Tagging Systems with Tag Taxonomies". Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies. ACM. Article 18. doi:10.1145/2024288.2024310. ISBN   978-1-4503-0732-1. S2CID   1687654.
  30. 1 2 3 4 5 Held, C.; Cress, U. (2009). "Learning by Foraging: The impact of social tags on knowledge acquisition". Learning in the synergy of multiple disciplines. Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series. Vol. 5794. Springer. pp. 254–266. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04636-0_24. ISBN   978-3-642-04636-0.
  31. ↑ Fu, W.-T. (2008). "The microstructures of social tagging: a rational model". Proceedings of the ACM 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM. pp. 229–238. doi:10.1145/1460563.1460600. ISBN   978-1-60558-007-4. S2CID   2202814.
  32. 1 2 3 4 5 Kimmerle, J.; Cress, U.; Held, C. (2010). "The interplay between individual and collective knowledge: technologies for organisational learning and knowledge building". Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 8 (1): 33–44. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.401.6930 . doi:10.1057/kmrp.2009.36. S2CID   16431803.
  33. ↑ Price, Ludi (2019). "Fandom, Folksonomies and Creativity: the case of the Archive of Our Own" (PDF). The Human Position in an Artificial World: Creativity, Ethics and AI in Knowledge Organization. Germany: Ergon Verlag. pp. 11–37. doi:10.5771/9783956505508-11. ISBN   9783956505508. S2CID   201388266.
  34. ↑ Steele, T. (2009). "The new cooperative cataloging". Library Hi Tech. 27 (1): 68–77. doi:10.1108/07378830910942928.
  35. ↑ Harper, C.A.; Tillett, B.B. (2007). "Library of Congress Controlled Vocabularies and Their Application to the Semantic Web". Cataloging & Classification Quarterly. 43 (3–4): 47–68. doi:10.1300/J104v43n03_03. S2CID   61603617. Archived from the original on 2013-04-10. Retrieved 2020-01-11.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  36. ↑ Mocnik, Franz-Benjamin; Zipf, Alexander; Raifer, Martin (3 July 2017). "The OpenStreetMap folksonomy and its evolution". Geo-spatial Information Science. 20 (3): 219–230. Bibcode:2017GSIS...20..219M. doi: 10.1080/10095020.2017.1368193 . S2CID   81977662.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.