Heh -
at risk of opening up the tagging vs 'proper classification'
argument...
Ambiguity can actually be a benefit of tagging, when it's held against
the very formal pre-existing taxonomy.
in
short - taxonomy can never be absolutley objective (it's culturally determined)
- and a loose fauxonomy over the top helps expose the points where you have made
assumptions. It particularly helps if you can map those assumptions to an
individual; eg, you can find out a lot about me by looking at my personal tag
preferences, and make broad inferences about the way I would classify things
differently according to the accords/contradictions with the official
classification. Upshot of this is some kind of semantic personalisation of the
way a site is organised....
Does
that make any sense at all??
Coates
- haven't you got a good post about this somewhere?
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mario Menti
Sent: 01 November 2005 23:20
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [backstage] Programme Archive/Message Board beta
On 11/1/05, Matthew Somerville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Very nice, apart from "owls" is currently all about Sheffield Wednesday, not
where to spot little owls. :) Not sure how you deal with that with tagging
(if you could do owls AND football, I guess, as long as it was all tagged
correctly... But who defines what's correct?).
Well, I guess ambiguity/homonyms is one of the limitations of tagging. The other weakness is its opposite, the lack of control over synonyms. That's where a controlled vocabulary would come in handy, but is probably not possible in a context such as this (BBC).
Mario.
