* Thomas Vander Wal이 만든말
"자유롭게 선택한 키워드를 이용하여 협업적 분류를 뜻하는 신조어" - 위키피디아 정의
*사용자의 가치는 어떻게 만드는가?
Folksonomy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A "folksonomy" is a collaboratively generated, open-ended labeling system that enables Internet users to categorize content such as Web pages, online photographs, and Web links. The freely chosen labels -- called tags -- help to improve search engine effectiveness because content is categorized using a familiar, accessible, and shared vocabulary. The labeling process is called tagging.
Folksonomy creation and searching tools are not part of the underlying World Wide Web protocols. Folksonomies arise in Web-based communities where special provisions are made at the site level for creating and using tags. These communities are established to enable Web users to label and share user-generated content, such as photographs, or to collaboratively label existing content, such as Web sites, books, works in the scientific and scholarly literatures, and blog entries.
Because folksonomies develop in Internet-mediated social environments, users can discover (generally) who created a given folksonomy tag, and see the other tags that this person created. In this way, folksonomy users often discover the tag sets of another user who tends to interpret and tag content in a way that makes sense to them. The result, often, is an immediate and rewarding gain in the user's capacity to find related content.
자체 분류법
위키백과 ― 우리 모두의 백과사전.
자체 분류법(Folksonomy)은 자유롭게 선택된 키워드를 이용하여 이루어지는 협업적 분류를 뜻하는 신조어이다. 보다 구어적으로, 이것은 정보를 분류하기 위해 사람들이 자발적으로 협력하는 것을 의미한다. 이러한 현상은 보통 비계층 사회에서 일어난다. 예를 들면 일반 웹사이트에서 일어나며, 반대로 다-위계의 팀이나 계층 조직에서는 일어나지 않는다. 정보의 분류자는 보통 최초의 사용자이며, 자체 분류법을 사용하는 사람들은 그것이 보다 정확하게 정보에 대한 대중적인 개념 모델을 반영한다고 믿는다. 자체 분류법은 도서관학의 분류법과 직접적인 관련은 없다.
자체 분류법(Folksonomy)과 일상 작명법(Folk taxonomy)과의 관계에 대한 논쟁이 있다.
Contents[hide] |
Benefits of folksonomies
In contrast to professionally developed controlled vocabularies (also called taxonomies), folksonomies are unsystematic and, from an information scientist's point of view, unsophisticated; however, for Internet users, they dramatically lower content categorization costs because there is no complicated, hierarchically organized nomenclature to learn. One simply creates and applies tags on the fly.
Again in contrast to controlled vocabularies or formal taxonomies, folksonomies are inherently open-ended and can therefore respond quickly to changes and innovations in the way users categorize Internet content. Like other commons-based peer production systems, such as open source software development and Wikis like Wikipedia, this production process can -- in spite of the fact the participating individuals possess varying levels of tagging sophistication -- produce results that compare favorably to the best professionally designed systems.
Perhaps the greatest benefit of folksonomy is its relevance in the information retrieval sense of the term -- that is, the capacity of its tags to describe the "aboutness" of an Internet resource. After all, folksonomies are generated by people who have spent a great deal of time interacting with the content they tag. They know it far better than any outsider possibly could, even an outsider with controlled vocabulary expertise.
Origin of the term
The term folksonomy is generally attributed to Thomas Vander Wal[1], who created the word to describe a phenomenon that had already taken recognizable form; for example, the World Wide Web Consortium's Annotea project experimented with user-generated tags in 2002.[2] According to Vander Wal, a folksonomy is "tagging that works".
Folksonomy should be distinguished from folk taxonomy, a cultural practice that has been widely documented in anthropological 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).[3]
The term folksonomy is a neologism or Portmanteau word that specifically refers to the tagging systems created within Internet communities. A combination of the words folk (or folks) and taxonomy, the term folksonomy literally means "people's classification management": "Taxonomy" is from the Greek taxis and nomos. Taxis means "classification" and nomos (or nomia) means "management," while "Folk" is from the Old English folc, meaning people.
Folksonomy and the Semantic Web
Folksonomy may hold the key to developing a Semantic Web, in which every Web page contains machine-readable metadata that describes its content. Such metadata would dramatically improve the precision (the percentage of relevant documents) in search engine retrieval lists. However, it is difficult to see how the large and varied community of Web page authors could be persuaded to add metadata to their pages in a consistent, reliable way; Web authors who wish to do so experience high entry costs because metadata systems are time-consuming to learn and use. For this reason, few Web authors make use of the simple Dublin Core metadata system, even though the use of Dublin Core meta tags could increase their pages' prominence in search engine retrieval lists. In contrast to top-down controlled vocabularies such as Dublin Core, folksonomy is a distributed classification system with low entry costs. If folksonomy capabilities were built into the Web protocols, it is possible that the Semantic Web would develop more quickly.
Folksonomy in the enterprise
Since folksonomies are user-generated and therefore inexpensive to implement, advocates of folksonomy believe that it provides a useful low-cost alternative to more traditional, institutionally supported taxonomies or controlled vocabularies. An employee-generated folksonomy could therefore be seen as an "emergent enterprise taxonomy". Some folksonomy advocates believe that it is useful in facilitating workplace democracy and the distribution of management tasks among people actually doing the work.
Criticisms of folksonomy
In contrast to top-down, authoritative systems of formal taxonomy, folksonomic categories may strike those of a formal turn of mind as hopelessly idiosyncratic, but therein lies their value: a folksonomic category arises from an individual's engagement with the tagged content, such that the created category is simultaneously personal, social, and (to some degree) systematic, albeit in an imperfect and provisional way. Folksonomies therefore convey information on multiple levels, including information about the people who create them, and they therefore invite human engagement. If you agree with somebody's classification scheme, no matter how bizarre it might seem to others, you are subtly but strongly encouraged to explore other objects that this user has tagged.
Still, folksonomies are characterized by flaws that formal classification systems are designed to eliminate, including polysemy (words which have multiple related meanings; for example, a window can be a hole or a sheet of glass); synonym, multiple words with the same or similar meanings (tv and television, or Netherlands/Holland/Dutch) and plural words (cat and cats).[4] In addition, folksonomies all but invite deliberately idiosyncratic tagging, called meta noise, which burdens users and decreases the system's information retrieval utility. Those who prefer top-down taxonomies/ontologies argue that an agreed set of tags enables more efficient indexing and searching of content.
A possible solution to the shortcomings of folksonomies and controlled vocabulary is a collabulary, which can be conceptualized as a compromise between the two: a team of classification experts collaborates with content consumers to create rich, but more systematic content tagging systems. A collabulary arises much the way a folksonomy does, but it is developed in a spirit of democratic collaboration with experts in the field. The result is a system that combines the benefits of folksonomies -- low entry costs, a rich vocabulary that is broadly shared and comprehensible by the user base, and the capacity to respond quickly to language change -- without the errors that inevitably arise in naive, unsupervised folksonomies.
References
- ^ Berlin, B. (1992). Ethnobiological Classification. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- ^ Vanderwal, T. (2005). "Off the Top: Folksonomy Entries." Visited November 5, 2005.
- [5]M. Koivunen, Annotea and Semantic Web Supported Annoation.
- ^ Golder, Scott A. Huberman, Bernardo A. (2005). "The Structure of Collaborative Tagging Systems." Information Dynamics Lab, HP Labs. Visited November 24, 2005.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기