integrating folksonomies into cultural heritage …/67531/metadc...integrating folksonomies into...
TRANSCRIPT
INTEGRATING FOLKSONOMIES INTO
CULTURAL HERITAGE DIGITAL
COLLECTIONS: THE CHALLENGIES
AND OPPORTUNITIES OF WEB 2.0
Daniel Gelaw Alemneh
University of North Texas, and
Dr. Samantha Kelly Hastings
University of South Carolina
2
Background .
Document Document
Representation Query Information
Need
Match
(Bates, 1989).
ICKM 2008
Currently, the information retrieval support is limited.
Do you recognize these icons?
ICKM 2008 3
4
Background…
“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:
. . Total Sites Across All Domains Aug. 1995 – Sept. 2008
5
6
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
ICKM 2008
7
Trends…
User as creator, annotator, indexer,
searcher, and eventual user of his/her
content instead of authors and
professional indexers
User’s language and vocabulary instead of controlled
vocabulary
Tags and folksonomies instead of subject headings,
taxonomies and classification system
ICKM 2008
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
ICKM 2008
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
ICKM 2008
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,
Flickr is 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
Advantages
Folksonomies are:
Inclusive, democratic and self-moderating
Current
Lightweight
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
ICKM 2008
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
ICKM 2008
Folksonomies in Cultural Heritage
Institutions
Many institutions are using or exploring 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 interface. allows users to create their own collections and view public
collections created by others.
Enhancements planned to include MTagger 14
Folksonomies in …
Bibliocommons, a social discovery system
for libraries transforming online library catalogues from searchable
inventory systems into engaging social discovery
environments.
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
15
ICKM 2008
Folksonomies in …
Conntoea, references management tool
Allows users to find, save, customize, export or
import their references
BibSonomy , a system for sharing
bookmarks and lists of literature.
allows users to import from delicious their
libraries to BibTex or Endnote
16
ICKM 2008
17
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
Example
Personal Digital Assistant
Synonyms
Handheld Computer
"Alternate" Spellings
Persenal Digitel Asistent
Abbreviations / Acronyms
PDA
Broader Terms
Wireless, Computers
Narrower Terms
PalmPilot, PocketPC
Related Terms
WindowsCE, Cell Phones
ICKM 2008
18
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
19
Opportunities Users are willing to provide descriptions of their own and
others’ contents
“Every user his/her overview of the document collection” (Abebe’s version of Ranganathan’s 2nd law )
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
20
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.
21
Implications
A number of professional
groups are evaluating Web 2.0 tools and assess
impacts and metrics relating to using the Web as a
library‘s core service space.
The theme of the IS related conferences, such as ASIS&T try to address the entire phenomenon associated with Web 2.0:
-When users become active producers and contributors in
the information sphere, what are the implications for LIS?
-How are social computing and Web 2.0 trends affecting the
work of information professionals?
-What current research and applications are shaping future
directions? …
22
Implications…
A growing number of non LIS Conferences and
Journals reflected upon the Web 2.0 issues:
What is the future of "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? ICKM 2008
23
Some things are timeless
Ranganathan’s 1931 five laws of LS
“Application of Ranganathan's Laws to the
Web” (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.
24
Summary
The ability to tag onto an OPAC or other
1.0 technologies may not fix the
underlying issues of IR.
Let’s keep on tagging, anyway.
When social networking moves out of the
friend’s circle and into the wider
information sphere, the impact would
be…
25
References & Web Sites Consulted -Rorissa, A. (2007) Presentation at ASIS&T 2007, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
-ASIS&T: http://www.asis.org/
-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
References… -Peterson, E. (2006, November). “Beneath the metadata: Some philosophical problems
with folksonomies” D-lib Magazine, 12(11). Retrieved August 1, 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 Aug. 1,
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). Retrieved August 1, 2008, from : doi:10.1045/april2005-hammond.
-University of Pennsylvania, (2005). “What is PennTags?” Retrieved August 1, 2008,
from: http://tags.library.upenn.edu/help/what_is_penntags
-University of Michigan (2008) “MBooks Collection Builder” and “MTagger.” Retrieved
August 1, 2008, from: http://www.lib.umich.edu/mtagger/
-Vander W. T. (2004). “Folksonomy”. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from:
http://vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html.
-Vander W.T. (2007). Explaining and Showing Broad and Narrow Folksonomies.
Retrieved August 1, 2008, from
http://www.personalinfocloud.com/2005/02/explaining_and_.html
-Webology (2008). Call for papers. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from :
http://www.webology.ir/cfp.html 26
.
Thank you!
27