Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0029264777 = product of:
  0.008779433 = sum of:
    0.008779433 = weight(_text_:a in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008779433 = score(doc=1265,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Today I want to talk about categorization, and I want to convince you that a lot of what we think we know about categorization is wrong. In particular, I want to convince you that many of the ways we're attempting to apply categorization to the electronic world are actually a bad fit, because we've adopted habits of mind that are left over from earlier strategies. I also want to convince you that what we're seeing when we see the Web is actually a radical break with previous categorization strategies, rather than an extension of them. The second part of the talk is more speculative, because it is often the case that old systems get broken before people know what's going to take their place. (Anyone watching the music industry can see this at work today.) That's what I think is happening with categorization. What I think is coming instead are much more organic ways of organizing information than our current categorization schemes allow, based on two units -- the link, which can point to anything, and the tag, which is a way of attaching labels to links. The strategy of tagging -- free-form labeling, without regard to categorical constraints -- seems like a recipe for disaster, but as the Web has shown us, you can extract a surprising amount of value from big messy data sets.

Footnote

This piece is based on two talks I gave in the spring of 2005 -- one at the O'Reilly ETech conference in March, entitled "Ontology Is Overrated", and one at the IMCExpo in April entitled "Folksonomies & Tags: The rise of user-developed classification." The written version is a heavily edited concatenation of those two talks.

0.002654651 = product of:
  0.007963953 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=309,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 309, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=309)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper describes a survey on how system vendors and libraries handled tagging in OPACs and discovery layers. Tags are user added subject metadata, also called folksonomies. This survey also investigated user behavior when they face the possibility to tag. The findings indicate that legacy/classic systems have no tagging capability. About 47% of the discovery tools provide tagging function. About 49% of the libraries that have a system with tagging capability have turned the tagging function on in their OPACs and discovery tools. Only 40% of the libraries that turned tagging on actually utilized user added subject metadata as access point to collections. Academic library users are less active in tagging than public library users.

Type

a