更改

作为广义协同标记的网站， del.icio.us允许用户使用自己的个人标签标记任何他们发现的相关的在线资源的网站。 Flickr 作为一个照片分享网站，是狭义协同标记的典型例子。

作为广义协同标记的网站， del.icio.us允许用户使用自己的个人标签标记任何他们发现的相关的在线资源的网站。 Flickr 作为一个照片分享网站，是狭义协同标记的典型例子。

==Folksonomy vs. taxonomy==

==协同标记与分类方法 ==

'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.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Laniado|first1=David|title=Using WordNet to turn a folksonomy into a hierarchy of concepts|journal=CEUR Workshop Proceedings|volume=314|issue=51|url=http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-314/51.pdf|access-date=7 August 2015}}</ref>)

'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.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Laniado|first1=David|title=Using WordNet to turn a folksonomy into a hierarchy of concepts|journal=CEUR Workshop Proceedings|volume=314|issue=51|url=http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-314/51.pdf|access-date=7 August 2015}}</ref>)

'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.)

'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.)

“分类法”是指一种层次分类，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。)

“分类法”是指一种层次分类，将定义相对良好的类被嵌套在更广泛的类别中。协同标记建立的分类目录，不规定或者必须在不同的标签之间的道父子关系的层次结构类别，即每个标记就是一个类别(已经有从标签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.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Weinberger|first1=David|title=Folksonomy as Symbol|url=http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/?p=6254|website=Joho the Blog|access-date=7 August 2015}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Weinberger|first1=David|title=Folksonomy as Symbol|url=http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/?p=6254|website=Joho the Blog|access-date=7 August 2015}}</ref> 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.

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。

支持 协同标记的人声称，他们通常比分类法更可取，因为协同标记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，协同标记杂乱无章，难以使用，而且反映出的短暂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,<ref name="WWW07-ref" >Harry Halpin, Valentin Robu, Hana Shepherd [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1242572.1242602 The Complex Dynamics of Collaborative Tagging], Proc. International Conference on World Wide Web, ACM Press, 2007.</ref> 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.<ref name="TWEB-ref" >V. Robu, H. Halpin, H. Shepherd [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1594173.1594176 Emergence of consensus and shared vocabularies in collaborative tagging systems], ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), Vol. 3(4), art. 14, 2009.</ref>

An empirical analysis of the complex dynamics of tagging systems, published in 2007,<ref name="WWW07-ref" >Harry Halpin, Valentin Robu, Hana Shepherd [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1242572.1242602 The Complex Dynamics of Collaborative Tagging], Proc. International Conference on World Wide Web, ACM Press, 2007.</ref> 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.<ref name="TWEB-ref" >V. Robu, H. Halpin, H. Shepherd [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1594173.1594176 Emergence of consensus and shared vocabularies in collaborative tagging systems], ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), Vol. 3(4), art. 14, 2009.</ref>

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.

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.

Folksonomy is unrelated to [[folk taxonomy]], a cultural practice that has been widely documented in anthropological and [[folkloristics|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]]).<ref name="Berlin, B. 1992"/>

Folksonomy is unrelated to [[folk taxonomy]], a cultural practice that has been widely documented in anthropological and [[folkloristics|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]]).<ref name="Berlin, B. 1992"/>

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).

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).

The study of the structuring or classification of folksonomy is termed ''folksontology''.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.heppnetz.de/files/vandammeheppsiorpaes-folksontology-semnet2007-crc.pdf | title=FolksOntology: An Integrated Approach for Turning Folksonomies into Ontologies | access-date=April 20, 2012 | author=Van Damme, Céline|display-authors=etal}}</ref> This branch of [[ontology (information science)|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.<ref>Trattner, C., Körner, C., Helic, D.: [http://www.christophtrattner.info/pubs/iknow2011.pdf 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</ref> 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''.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.heppnetz.de/files/vandammeheppsiorpaes-folksontology-semnet2007-crc.pdf | title=FolksOntology: An Integrated Approach for Turning Folksonomies into Ontologies | access-date=April 20, 2012 | author=Van Damme, Céline|display-authors=etal}}</ref> This branch of [[ontology (information science)|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.<ref>Trattner, C., Körner, C., Helic, D.: [http://www.christophtrattner.info/pubs/iknow2011.pdf 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</ref> 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.

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。

研究协同标记的结构或分类称为协同分类学。本体论的这个分支处理高度结构化的分类或层次结构与协同标记之间的交叉，寻找对于一个分类系统来说可以采用的最佳特性有哪些。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。协同标记则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。 如果系统标记能够对标签进行分类，则可以创建易于维护和扩展的可浏览的信息空间。

== Social tagging for knowledge acquisition ==

== 用于知识获取的社会化标签 ==

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.<ref name=":0">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.</ref>

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.<ref name=":0">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.</ref>