城市计算

来自集智百科 - 伊辛模型
跳到导航 跳到搜索

此词条暂由彩云小译翻译,翻译字数共2764,未经人工整理和审校,带来阅读不便,请见谅。

模板:Distinguish 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.


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. (isabella-peters.de) This practice is also known as collaborative tagging, social classification, social indexing, and social tagging. Folksonomy was originally "the result of personal free tagging of information [...] for one's own retrieval", 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.

大众分类法是一种分类方案分类法,最终用户将公共标签应用于在线项目,典型的做法是让这些项目更容易为自己或其他人以后找到。随着时间的推移,基于这些标签以及它们被应用或搜索的频率,可能会产生一个分类方案分类,这与内容所有者设计的分类分类并在出版时指定的分类分类形成了对比。这种做法也被称为 isabella-peters.de 分众分类法、分众分类法、社会索引和社会标签。大众分类法最初是“个人自由标记信息[ ... ]用于自己检索的结果”,但在线分享和交互将其扩展为协作形式。社会化标签是在一个开放的在线环境中应用标签,其他用户的标签对其他用户是可用的。分众分类法标签(也称为组标签)是由一组用户执行的标签。这种类型的大众分类通常用于合作和协作项目,如研究、内容库和社会性书签。

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]

The term was coined by Thomas Vander Wal in 2004Vander 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.Origin of the term 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.

这个术语是由 Thomas Vander Wal 在2004年(2005)提出的。“ Off the Top: Folksonomy entry。”2005年11月5日参观。参见: Smith,Gene。大众分类法: 分众分类法2004年8月3日。检索于2007年1月1日。该术语作为民间和分类学的合成词的起源。作为社交软件应用的一部分,Folksonomies 变得流行起来,比如社会性书签和照片注释,它们使用户能够通过共享标签对信息进行集体分类和查找。一些网站将标签云作为一种可视化大众分类法中标签的方式。

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]模板:Better source needed模板:Clarify

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.

民俗学可用于 K-12教育、商业和高等教育。更具体地说,民俗学可以应用于社会性书签、教师资源库、电子学习系统、合作学习、协作研究、专业发展和教学。维基百科也是大众分类法的一个典型例子。

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]

  • Tagging is easy to understand and do, even without training and previous knowledge in classification or indexing
  • The vocabulary in a folksonomy directly reflects the user's vocabulary
  • Folksonomies are flexible, in the sense that the user can add or remove tags
  • Tags consist of both popular content and long-tail content, enabling users to browse and discover new content even in narrow topics
  • Tags reflect the user's conceptual model without cultural, social, or political bias
  • Enable the creation of communities, in the sense that users who apply the same tag have a common interest
  • Folksonomies are multi-dimensional, in the sense that users can assign any number and combination of tags to express a concept

Folksonomies are a trade-off between traditional centralized classification and no classification at all,Gupta, M., et al., An Overview of Social Tagging and Applications, in Social Network Data Analytics, C.C. Aggarwal, Editor. 2011, Springer. p. 447-497. and have several advantages:Quintarelli, E., Folksonomies: power to the people. 2005.Mathes, A., Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata. 2004.Wal, T.V. Folksonomy. 2007

  • Tagging is easy to understand and do, even without training and previous knowledge in classification or indexing
  • The vocabulary in a folksonomy directly reflects the user's vocabulary
  • Folksonomies are flexible, in the sense that the user can add or remove tags
  • Tags consist of both popular content and long-tail content, enabling users to browse and discover new content even in narrow topics
  • Tags reflect the user's conceptual model without cultural, social, or political bias
  • Enable the creation of communities, in the sense that users who apply the same tag have a common interest
  • Folksonomies are multi-dimensional, in the sense that users can assign any number and combination of tags to express a concept

= = = 分类的好处和坏处 = = = 分类是在传统的集中分类和根本没有分类之间的权衡,Gupta,m,等人,《社会网络数据分析》中的社会标签和应用概述。阿加瓦尔,编辑。2011,Springer.有几个优点: 昆塔雷利,e。民俗学: 人民的力量。2005. Mathes,a. ,folksonies-通过共享元数据进行合作分类和交流。2004. Wal,t.v.Folksonomy.2007

  • 标签很容易理解和使用,即使没有经过培训和以前的知识分类或索引
  • 大众分类法的词汇直接反映用户的词汇
  • 大众分类法是灵活的,在这个意义上,用户可以添加或删除标签
  • 标签包括流行的内容和长尾的内容,使用户能够浏览和发现新的内容,即使是在狭窄的主题
  • 反映用户的概念模型,没有文化,社会或政治偏见 * 创建社区,在这个意义上,使用相同的标签的用户有共同的兴趣
  • 大众分类法是多维的,在这个意义上,用户可以指定任何数字和组合的标签来表达一

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.

There are several disadvantages with the use of tags and folksonomies as well,Kipp, M. and D.G. Campbell, Patterns and Inconsistencies in Collaborative Tagging Systems: An Examination of Tagging Practices. Proceedings Annual General Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006. and some of the advantages (see above) can lead to problems. For example, the simplicity in tagging can result in poorly applied tags.Hayman, S., Folksonomies and Tagging: New developments in social bookmarking, in Proceedings of Ark Group Conference: Developing and Improving Classification Schemes, 2007, Sydney. 2007: Sydney. Further, while controlled vocabularies are exclusionary by nature,Kroski, E., The Hive Mind: Folksonomies and User-Based Tagging. 2005 tags are often ambiguous and overly personalized.Guy, M. and E. Tonkin, Folksonomies: Tidying up Tags? D-Lib Magazine, 2006. 12(Number 1): p. 1-15. 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.

使用标签和通俗名称也有几个缺点,Kipp,m 和 d.g。分众分类法系统中的模式和不一致性: 标记实践的检验。2006年美国信息科学与技术学会会议录。一些优点(见上文)可能会导致问题。例如,标签的简单性可能导致标签应用不当。Folksonomies 和标签: 社会性书签的新发展,在《方舟集团会议记录: 发展和改进分类方案》 ,2007年,悉尼。2007: 悉尼。此外,虽然受控词汇天生具有排他性,但是 Kroski e,The Hive Mind: folksonies and User-Based Tagging。2005年的标签经常是模棱两可的,而且过于个性化?D-Lib 杂志,2006。第12页(第1页) : 第1-15页。用户以许多不同的方式对文档使用标记,标记系统也常常缺乏处理同义词、首字母缩略词和同音词的机制,而且他们还常常缺乏处理拼写错误、单复数形式、共轭词和复合词等拼写变化的机制。一些标签系统不支持由多个单词组成的标签,导致了像“ viewfrommywindow”这样的标签。有时候用户选择专门的标签或者标签对其他人来说毫无意义。

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,[20] and that they appear as a simple form of metadata.[21]

A folksonomy emerges when users tag content or information, such as web pages, photos, videos, podcasts, tweets, scientific papers and others. Strohmaier et al.Strohmaier, M., C. Körner, and R. Kern, Understanding why users tag: A survey of tagging motivation literature and results from an empirical study. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 2012. 17: p. 1-11. 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 labelAmes, M.N.M., Why We Tag: Motivations for Annotation in Mobile and Online Media, in SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 2007, ACM Press: New York, NY, USA. p. 971-980. or keywords,Guy, M. and E. Tonkin, Folksonomies: Tidying up Tags? D-Lib Magazine, 2006. 12(Number 1): p. 1-15. and that they appear as a simple form of metadata.Brooks, C.H. and N. Montanez, Improved annotation of the blogosphere via autotagging and hierarchical clustering, in WWW '06: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web. 2006, ACM Press: New York, NY, USA. p. 625-632.

当用户标记内容或信息时,比如网页、照片、视频、播客、 tweets、科学论文等等,大众分类法就会出现。等人。理解用户为什么要标记: 一项关于标记动机的文献调查和一项实证研究的结果。网络语义学: 万维网上的科学、服务和代理,2012。17: p. 1-11.详细说明这一概念:”标签”一词是指”用户自愿用所谓的‘标签’注释资源的活动——从无限制和不受控制的词汇中自由选择”。其他人将标签解释为一个非结构化的文本 labelAmes,m.n.m. ,Why We Tag: kineries for Annotation in Mobile and Online Media,in SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems。2007,ACM Press: New York,NY,USA.971-980. 或关键字,盖伊,m 和 e 东京,民俗学: 整理标签?D-Lib 杂志,2006。第12页(第1页) : 第1-15页。它们作为一种简单的元数据形式出现。和 n. Montanez---- 通过自动测量和层次聚类改进了博客世界的注释,在 WWW’06: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web。2006,ACM Press: New York,NY,USA.P. 625-632.

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.[22]

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.Berlin, B. (1992). Ethnobiological Classification. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

大众分类法由三个基本实体组成: 用户、标记和资源。用户创建标签来标记资源,例如: 网页、照片、视频和播客。这些标签用于管理、分类和总结在线内容。这个分众分类法系统也使用这些标签作为索引信息,方便搜索和浏览资源的方式。大众分类法还包括一组 url,用于识别不同网站用户引用的资源。这些系统还包括能够按不同粒度级别组织标记的分类方案。(1992).民族生物学分类。普林斯顿: 普林斯顿大学出版社。

Vander Wal identifies two types of folksonomy: broad and narrow.[23] 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.[23]

Vander Wal identifies two types of folksonomy: broad and narrow. 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.

范德 · 沃尔确定了两种类型的大众分类法: 广义大众分类和狭义大众分类。当多个用户可以对一个项目应用相同的标记,并提供关于哪些标记最受欢迎的信息时,就会产生广泛的大众分类法。一个狭义的大众分类法发生在用户使用标签标记一个项目的时候,这些标签通常数量较少,并且通常包括项目的创建者,每个项目只能应用一次。虽然广义大众分类法和狭义大众分类法都通过向对象添加关联词或短语来实现内容的可搜索性,但广义大众分类法允许根据每个标记的流行程度进行排序,并跟踪标记使用和发展词汇表的新趋势。

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.

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.

一个广泛的大众分类法的例子是 del.icio.us,一个用户可以用自己的个人标签标记任何他们发现相关的在线资源的网站。照片分享网站 Flickr 是一个经常被引用的狭隘大众分类法的例子。

Folksonomy vs. 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.[24])

'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.)

= = Folksonomy vs. Taxonomy = = ‘ Taxonomy’指的是一种层次分类,其中定义相对良好的类被嵌套在更广泛的类别中。大众分类法建立了类别(每个标记都是一个类别) ,但是没有规定或者必须在不同的标记之间得到父子关系的层次结构。(已经研究了从标记集群中至少衍生出松散层次结构的技术。)

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.[25] 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.

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. 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.

支持 folksonomies 的人声称,他们通常比分类法更可取,因为 folksonomies 使信息的组织方式民主化,他们对用户更有用,因为他们反映了当前对领域的思考方式,他们表达了更多关于领域的信息。批评者声称,民俗分类法杂乱无章,因此难以使用,而且可以反映出短暂的趋势,可能会歪曲某一领域的已知信息。

An empirical analysis of the complex dynamics of tagging systems, published in 2007,[26] 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.[27] 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.[28]

An empirical analysis of the complex dynamics of tagging systems, published in 2007,Harry Halpin, Valentin Robu, Hana Shepherd The Complex Dynamics of Collaborative Tagging, Proc. International Conference on World Wide Web, ACM Press, 2007. 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.V. Robu, H. Halpin, H. Shepherd Emergence of consensus and shared vocabularies in collaborative tagging systems, ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), Vol. 3(4), art. 14, 2009. 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.Robert Wetzker, Carsten Zimmermann, Christian Bauckhage, and Sahin Albayrak I tag, you tag: translating tags for advanced user models, Proc. International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, ACM Press, 2010.

2007年发表的一篇关于复动力学标签系统的实证分析,Harry Halpin,Valentin Robu,Hana Shepherd,复动力学的分众分类法标签系统,Proc。万维网国际会议,美国计算机学会出版社,2007年。已经表明,围绕稳定发行版和共享词汇表的共识确实出现了,即使在没有核心受控词表的情况下。对于可搜索的内容,应该对其进行分类和分组。虽然这被认为需要在描述标签的内容集上达成共识(很像期刊文章的关键词) ,但是一些研究发现,在大型民俗学中,常见结构也出现在 categorizations.V 的层面上。分众分类法系统中共识和共享词汇的出现,ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB) ,Vol。3(4) ,艺术。14, 2009.因此,我们可以设计出分众分类法的数学模型,从而将个人标记词汇(personomies)转换为大多数用户共享的词汇。和 Sahin Albayrak i tag,you tag: translating tags for advanced user models,Proc。网络搜索和数据挖掘国际会议,ACM 出版社,2010年。

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).[22]

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).

民间分类法与民间分类法无关,这种文化实践在人类学和民间分类学著作中得到了广泛的记载。民间分类法是文化上提供的、代际间传播的、相对稳定的分类系统,特定文化中的人们使用这些系统来理解他们周围的整个世界(而不仅仅是互联网)。

The study of the structuring or classification of folksonomy is termed folksontology.[29] 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.[30] Folksonomy looks to categorize tags and thus create browsable spaces of information that are easy to maintain and expand.

The study of the structuring or classification of folksonomy is termed folksontology. 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.Trattner, C., Körner, C., Helic, D.: Enhancing the Navigability of Social Tagging Systems with Tag Taxonomies. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2011 Folksonomy looks to categorize tags and thus create browsable spaces of information that are easy to maintain and expand.

研究大众分类法的结构或分类称为大众分类学。本体论的这个分支处理高度结构化的分类法或层次结构与松散结构大众分类法之间的交叉,询问这两者对于一个分类系统可以采用哪些最佳特性。平面标签方案的优势在于它们能够将一个项目与类似的其他项目联系起来。大众分类允许大型不同用户群体协作标记大规模的动态信息系统。分类法的优势在于它们的可浏览性: 用户可以很容易地从更广泛的知识开始,并将他们的查询定向到更具体和详细的知识。特拉特纳,c. ,k ö rner,c. ,Helic,d. : 通过标记分类增强社会标签系统的可导航性。在第11届知识管理和知识技术国际会议论文集中,ACM,纽约,纽约,美国,2011年 Folksonomy 期望对标签进行分类,从而创建易于维护和扩展的可浏览的信息空间。

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.[31]

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.Held, C., & Cress, U. (2009). Learning by Foraging: The impact of social tags on knowledge acquisition. In Learning in the synergy of multiple disciplines (pp. 254-266). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

= = = 获取知识的社会标签 = = 获取知识的社会标签是为个人或群体寻找和重新寻找特定内容而使用的特定标签。社会标签系统不同于传统的分类系统,因为它们是基于社区的系统,缺乏传统的分类系统等级。社会标签不是自顶向下的方法,而是依靠用户自下而上地创建大众分类法。赫尔德,c. ,& 克莱斯,美国。(2009).在觅食中学习: 社会标签对知识获取的影响。在多学科协同学习中(pp。254-266).Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

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.[32] The social aspect of tagging also allows users to take advantage of metadata from thousands of other users.[31]

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.Fu, W. (2008). The microstructures of social tagging: a rational model. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 229–238. ACM, New York. The social aspect of tagging also allows users to take advantage of metadata from thousands of other users.

社会标签在获取知识方面的常见用途包括个人发展和协作项目。社会标签用于中学、高等教育、研究生教育以及个人和商业研究中的知识获取。查找/重新查找源信息的好处适用于范围广泛的用户。标记的资源是通过搜索查询定位的,而不是通过更传统的文件夹 system.Fu,w (2008)进行搜索。社会标签的微观结构: 一个理性模型。参见: ACM 2008计算机支持的协同工作会议论文集,第页。229–238.美国计算机协会,纽约。标签的社会化方面也允许用户利用来自成千上万其他用户的元数据。

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.[33] 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.[31]

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.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. 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.

用户为存储的资源选择单独的标记。这些标签反映了个人联系、类别和概念。所有这些都是基于个人意义和相关性的个人表述。这些标签或者关键字是由用户指定的。因此,标记表示与资源对应的用户关联。通常标记的资源包括视频、照片、文章、网站和电子邮件。个人和集体知识之间的相互作用: 组织学习和知识建设的技术。知识管理研究与实践,8(1) ,33-44。标签是有益的,有几个原因。首先,它们帮助构建和组织大量的数字资源,以便当用户以后试图查找资源时能够方便地访问这些资源。第二个方面是社会化的本质,也就是说用户可以根据其他用户的标签来搜索新的资源和内容。甚至通过普通标签浏览也可能为获取知识提供更多的资源。

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.[33]

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.

使用特定资源出现得更频繁的标记被认为是连接性更强的标记。此外,标记可以相互连接。这可以从它们共同出现的频率中看出来。它们共同出现的次数越多,联系就越紧密。标记云通常用于可视化资源和标记之间的连接。字体大小随着关联强度的增加而增加。

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.[33]

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.

标签显示了以前用户不知道的概念之间的相互联系。因此,用户当前的认知结构可能会被聚合的社会标签中的元数据信息修改或增强。这个过程通过认知刺激和平衡促进知识的获得。这个理论框架被称为个体和集体知识的协同进化模型。

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.[31][33] 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.[31] The additional cognitive effort promotes information processing which in turn allows individual learning to occur.[33]

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. 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. The additional cognitive effort promotes information processing which in turn allows individual learning to occur.

协同进化模型着眼于认知冲突,即学习者的先验知识和从环境中获得的信息在一定程度上是不同的。当这种不一致发生时,学习者必须通过一个认知平衡的过程来使个人认知结构和外部信息一致。根据共同进化模型,这可能需要学习者修改现有的构造或者简单地添加到它们中。额外的认知努力促进了信息处理,而信息处理又促进了个体学习的发生。

Examples

  • BibSonomy: social bookmarking and publication-sharing system
  • del.icio.us: public tagging service
  • Diigo: social bookmarking website
  • Flickr: shared photos
  • Instagram: online photo-sharing and social networking service
  • Many libraries' online catalogsSteele, T. (2009). The new cooperative cataloging. Library Hi Tech, 27 (1), 68-77Corey A. Harper and Barbara B. Tillett, Library of Congress controlled vocabularies and their application to the Semantic Web
  • Mendeley: social reference management software
  • Pinterest: photosharing and publishing website
  • Steam video game store
  • StumbleUpon: content discovery engine
  • Twitter hashtags
  • The World Wide Web Consortium's Annotea project with user-generated tags in 2002.
  • WordPress: blogging tool and Content Management System
  • Tumblr tags

社会性书签图书馆和出版物分享系统 * del.icio.us: 公共标签服务 * Diigo: 社会性书签网站 * Flickr: 分享照片 * Instagram: 在线照片分享和社交网络服务 * 许多图书馆的在线目录。新型合作编目。图书馆高科技,27(1) ,68-77 corey a. Harper 和 Barbara b. Tillett,国会图书馆控制的词汇及其在语义网上的应用 * Mendeley: 社会参考管理软件 * Pinterest: 照片分享和出版网站 * Steam 视频游戏商店 * StumbleUpon: 内容发现引擎 * Twitter 标签 * 2002年美国万维网联盟的 Annotea 项目,用户生成标签。博客工具和内容管理系统

See also


  • Autotagging
  • Blogosphere
  • Collective intelligence
  • Enterprise bookmarking
  • Faceted classification
  • Hierarchical clustering
  • Semantic annotation
  • Semantic similarity
  • Thesaurus
  • Weak ontology
  • Wiki


集体智慧企业书签刻面分类层次聚类语义标注语义相似度弱本体 Wiki

References

{{Reflist|30em|refs = Bateman, S., Brooks, C., McCalla, G., & Brusilovsky, P. (2007, May). Applying collaborative tagging to e-learning. In Proceedings of the 16th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW2007).

  1. Peters, Isabella (2009). "Folksonomies. Indexing and Retrieval in Web 2.0". Berlin: De Gruyter Saur. ISBN 9783598251795. (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. 3993. pp. 1114–1117. arXiv:cs.DS/0512090. doi:10.1007/11758532_152. ISBN 978-3-540-34383-7. 
  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. 5.0 5.1 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. Unknown parameter |s2cid= ignored (help)
  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.
  10. Gupta, M., et al., An Overview of Social Tagging and Applications, in Social Network Data Analytics, C.C. Aggarwal, Editor. 2011, Springer. p. 447-497.
  11. Quintarelli, E., Folksonomies: power to the people. 2005.
  12. Mathes, A., Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata. 2004.
  13. Wal, T.V. Folksonomy. 2007
  14. Kipp, M. and D.G. Campbell, Patterns and Inconsistencies in Collaborative Tagging Systems: An Examination of Tagging Practices. Proceedings Annual General Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006.
  15. Hayman, S., Folksonomies and Tagging: New developments in social bookmarking, in Proceedings of Ark Group Conference: Developing and Improving Classification Schemes, 2007, Sydney. 2007: Sydney.
  16. Kroski, E., The Hive Mind: Folksonomies and User-Based Tagging. 2005
  17. Guy, M. and E. Tonkin, Folksonomies: Tidying up Tags? D-Lib Magazine, 2006. 12(Number 1): p. 1-15.
  18. Strohmaier, M., C. Körner, and R. Kern, Understanding why users tag: A survey of tagging motivation literature and results from an empirical study. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 2012. 17: p. 1-11.
  19. Ames, M.N.M., Why We Tag: Motivations for Annotation in Mobile and Online Media, in SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 2007, ACM Press: New York, NY, USA. p. 971-980.
  20. Guy, M. and E. Tonkin, Folksonomies: Tidying up Tags? D-Lib Magazine, 2006. 12(Number 1): p. 1-15.
  21. Brooks, C.H. and N. Montanez, Improved annotation of the blogosphere via autotagging and hierarchical clustering, in WWW '06: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web. 2006, ACM Press: New York, NY, USA. p. 625-632.
  22. 22.0 22.1 Berlin, B. (1992). Ethnobiological Classification. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  23. 23.0 23.1 Vander Wal, Thomas. "Explaining and Showing Broad and Narrow Folksonomies". Retrieved 2013-03-05.
  24. Laniado, David. "Using WordNet to turn a folksonomy into a hierarchy of concepts" (PDF). CEUR Workshop Proceedings. 314 (51). Retrieved 7 August 2015.
  25. Weinberger, David. "Folksonomy as Symbol". Joho the Blog. Retrieved 7 August 2015.
  26. Harry Halpin, Valentin Robu, Hana Shepherd The Complex Dynamics of Collaborative Tagging, Proc. International Conference on World Wide Web, ACM Press, 2007.
  27. V. Robu, H. Halpin, H. Shepherd Emergence of consensus and shared vocabularies in collaborative tagging systems, ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), Vol. 3(4), art. 14, 2009.
  28. Robert Wetzker, Carsten Zimmermann, Christian Bauckhage, and Sahin Albayrak I tag, you tag: translating tags for advanced user models, Proc. International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, ACM Press, 2010.
  29. Van Damme, Céline; et al. "FolksOntology: An Integrated Approach for Turning Folksonomies into Ontologies" (PDF). Retrieved April 20, 2012.
  30. Trattner, C., Körner, C., Helic, D.: Enhancing the Navigability of Social Tagging Systems with Tag Taxonomies. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2011
  31. 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4 Held, C., & Cress, U. (2009). Learning by Foraging: The impact of social tags on knowledge acquisition. In Learning in the synergy of multiple disciplines (pp. 254-266). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  32. Fu, W. (2008). The microstructures of social tagging: a rational model. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 229–238. ACM, New York.
  33. 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 33.4 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.
  34. Steele, T. (2009). The new cooperative cataloging. Library Hi Tech, 27 (1), 68-77
  35. Corey A. Harper and Barbara B. Tillett, Library of Congress controlled vocabularies and their application to the Semantic Web

温伯格(2007)。一切都是杂乱无章的: 新数字混乱的力量。纽约时报书店

External links

  • "Folksonomy", The New York Times, 2005-12-11
  • "Folksonomies Tap People Power", Wired News, 2005-02-01
  • Folksonomies as a tool for professional scientific databases
  • "The Three Orders": 2005 explanation of tagging and folksonomies (Archived version)
  • Vanderwal's definition of folksonomy
  • Vanderwal's take on Wikipedia's definition of folksonomy
  • Classroom Collaboration Using Social Bookmarking Service Diigo

= = = “ Folksonomy”,《纽约时报》 ,2005-12-11 * “ Folksonomies Tap People Power”,Wired News,2005-02-01 * * Folksonomies 作为专业科学数据库的工具 * * “ The Three Orders”: 2005年解释标签和大众分类法(存档版) * * Vanderwal 对大众分类法的定义 * * 采用维基百科对大众分类法的定义 * 使用社会性书签服务 Diigo 进行课堂协作

模板:Web syndication 模板:Semantic Web


Category:Collective intelligence Category:Knowledge representation Category:Metadata Category:Semantic Web Category:Social bookmarking Category:Taxonomy Category:Web 2.0 neologisms Category:Sociology of knowledge Category:Information architecture

类别: 集体智慧类别: 知识表示类别: 元数据类别: 语义网类别: 社会性书签类别: 分类类别: Web 2.0新词类别: 知识社会学类别: 信息架构


This page was moved from wikipedia:en:Folksonomy. Its edit history can be viewed at 城市计算/edithistory