Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

10.310593 = weight(object_ss:del.icio.us in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
  10.310593 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
    1.0 = tf(freq=1.0), with freq of:
      1.0 = termFreq=1.0
    10.310593 = idf(docFreq=3, maxDocs=44218)
    1.0 = fieldNorm(doc=663)

Abstract

The essence of folksonomies is user-created descriptive metadata as opposed to the traditional sender-determined descriptive metadata in taxonomies and faceted classification. We briefly introduce the beginning and principles of folksonomy and discuss the categorizing concept of folksonomies on the basis of the computer program del.icio.us. The selection of the metadata tagged is not accidental, rather tagging follows a pattern that proves to be the pattern for the classic power law, which, in many complex systems is seen to unfold as an imitation-dynamic that creates an asymmetry, where a few descriptive metadata are often reproduced and the majority seldom reproduced. In del.icio.us, it is the very broad and basic subject headings that are often reproduced and achieve power in the system - which in cognitive psychology is called cognitive basic categories - while the small, more specific subject headings are seldom reproduced. The law of power's underlying imitation-dynamic in del.icio.us is explained from the perspective of different theoretical paradigms, i.e. network, economy and cognition. The theorectical and speculative conclusion is that the law of power and asymmetry is biased by a cognitive economizing through a simplification principle in the users construction of descriptive metadata. Free tagging in folksonomies is comparable to empirical experiments in free categorization. Users often choose broad basic categories, because that requires the least cognitive effort. The consequences are that folksonomy is not necessarily a better, more realistic and cheaper method of creating metadata than that which can be generated through taxonomies, faceted classification or search algorithms. Folksonomy as a self-organizing system likely cannot create better and cheaper descriptive metadata.

Object

del.icio.us

10.310593 = weight(object_ss:del.icio.us in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
  10.310593 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
    1.0 = tf(freq=1.0), with freq of:
      1.0 = termFreq=1.0
    10.310593 = idf(docFreq=3, maxDocs=44218)
    1.0 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)

Abstract

A number of such utilities are presented here, together with an emergent new class of tools that caters more to the academic communities and that stores not only user-supplied tags, but also structured citation metadata terms wherever it is possible to glean this information from service providers. This provision of rich, structured metadata means that the user is provided with an accurate third-party identification of a document, which could be used to retrieve that document, but is also free to search on user-supplied terms so that documents of interest (or rather, references to documents) can be made discoverable and aggregated with other similar descriptions either recorded by the user or by other users. Matt Biddulph in an XML.com article last year, in which he reviews one of the better known social bookmarking tools, del.icio.us, declares that the "del.icio.us-space has three major axes: users, tags, and URLs". We fully support that assessment but choose to present this deconstruction in a reverse order. This paper thus first recaps a brief history of bookmarks, then discusses the current interest in tagging, moves on to look at certain social issues, and finally considers some of the feature sets offered by the new bookmarking tools. A general review of a number of common social bookmarking tools is presented in the annex. A companion paper describes a case study in more detail: the tool that Nature Publishing Group has made available to the scientific community as an experimental entrée into this field - Connotea; our reasons for endeavouring to provide such a utility; and experiences gained and lessons learned.

Object

del.icio.us

10.310593 = weight(object_ss:del.icio.us in 3360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
  10.310593 = fieldWeight in 3360, product of:
    1.0 = tf(freq=1.0), with freq of:
      1.0 = termFreq=1.0
    10.310593 = idf(docFreq=3, maxDocs=44218)
    1.0 = fieldNorm(doc=3360)

Content

This paper presents a longitudinal case study and analysis of tagging patterns in del.icio.us. Previous research has indicated that a tagging vocabulary will stabilize over time, suggesting that convergence may occur. This case study investigates the possibility of stability and convergence in a subset of the tagging vocabulary used with del.icio.us.

Object

del.icio.us