[MCN-L] Fwd: folksonomy article
http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/beneath_the_metadata_a_reply.html -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Leming Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 1:02 PM To: 'Museum Computer Network Listserv' Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Fwd: folksonomy article Along those lines... I have always found that filtering the log of a website for search transactions is an invaluable and interesting tool for assessing the content the site is delivering. Particularly useful are reasonable searches that returned no results for they are an indicator of content gaps. I think that folksonomies can be useful to formal classification structures in a similar way. For example, asking the residents of Philadelphia to pitch in on building the set of micro-neighborhoods (The Brickyard, The Valley, etc) within the standard (and beloved!) set (Germantown, Old City, Northern Liberties, ...) might add a vibrant layer to the structure of an oral history site. I think we all agree that we are grateful for the formal structures and the intellectual heavy lifting they represent. I expect we also all agree that they reflect their time and their architects and that they need to evolve. My suggestion - let the Classifiers and the Folksonomers sit down at a Tavern twice a year and work it out. Bob Leming Rock River Star -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Perian Sully Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 11:28 AM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Fwd: folksonomy article Well said. As Mal Booth replied, folksonomy can scare some people. I think that kind of gets to the crux of the matter, seeing as the library and archives people (and a lot of museums, too!) have done such a fantastic job of classifying everything, and now here's this upstart way of thinking about naming stuff which threatens to undermine that tidy order! Given the shifting nature of language, it would seem to me that folksonomy would assist classification systems - identifying terminologies which are outmoded and outdated. After all, isn't the whole point to help people find and identify stuff? How can they do that if they don't know the words something is classified under? Thus, getting to that hybrid model Nick was suggesting, folksonomy is certainly an aid and not a hindrance. Perian Sully Collection Database and Records Administrator Judah L. Magnes Museum Berkeley, CA Nick Poole nick at mda.org.uk 20/11/2006 4:39 am Jeanette et al, I was really interested in the post around the 'Beneath the Metadata' article. I actually think the article has some pretty deep flaws. First of all, it is not entirely clear why you would apply these philosophical constructs to Folksonomy in the first place and secondly I don't think it helps to further the understanding of what Folksonomy and 'traditional' cataloguing are and how they might work together. The article essentially says that classification is about absolutes - this horse is white, that box is empty - whereas Folksonomy is about subjectivity and relativism. It goes on to compare classification with propositional logic and states that Folksonomy by its nature gives rise to logical contradiction. It strikes me that this misses a significant part of the real value of the approach. In her article, Elaine Peterson says that when we catalogue, we are asking the question 'What is it?'. I couldn't disagree more. What we are really asking is 'What are we going to call this thing (and things relevantly similar to it)?'. In this sense, 'traditional' classification is an act of collective relativism, and is equally subject to the flaws of subjectivity as Folksonomy. I have no doubt that the wave around Folksonomy will eventually pass, and I very much hope that what will be left is an enriched approach to professional classification. There is considerable strength in a hybrid approach which retains the intellectual rigour of ontological standardisation but which equally recognises the additional potential value of large-scale subjective term-attribution. For example, would it not validate our professional beliefs if the subjective interpretations of tens of thousands of people translated up into patterns of meaning which confirmed them? And similarly, if they don't, wouldn't there be considerable value in asking why not? Finally, whatever the linguistic consistency or validity of folksonomic thesauri, we must never underestimate the importance of letting people in. The act of tagging is only partly to do with classification. It is an affirmative act which says 'I want to be involved' and for that alone, it is of tremendous value. Nick Poole Director Museum Documentation Association Nick Poole Director MDA The Spectrum Building, The Michael Young Centre, Purbeck Road, Cambridge, CB2
[MCN-L] Fwd: folksonomy article
Nick Well said! You've saved me blogging the same frustrations with this article. I would add to your response that folksonomies are often about aiding discoverability rather than about classifying. Whilst the Steve project may be more about 'how do i desribe this' other implementations of folksonomies (Powerhouse Museum's collection or del.icio.us etc) are more about opening up new ways, dare i say rhizomatic ways, of finding objects. When combined with free text searching and traditional ontologies, folksonomies often aid users in discovering other objects/records/items that otherwise would be near impossible to dredge up from the information depths. seb Sebastian Chan Manager, Web Services Powerhouse Museum street - 500 Harris St Ultimo, NSW Australia postal - PO Box K346, Haymarket, NSW 1238 tel - 61 2 9217 0109 fax - 61 2 9217 0689 e - sebc at phm.gov.au w - www.powerhousemuseum.com -Original Message- From: mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu on behalf of Nick Poole Sent: Mon 11/20/2006 4:39 AM To: 'Museum Computer Network Listserv' Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Fwd: folksonomy article Jeanette et al, I was really interested in the post around the 'Beneath the Metadata' article. I actually think the article has some pretty deep flaws. First of all, it is not entirely clear why you would apply these philosophical constructs to Folksonomy in the first place and secondly I don't think it helps to further the understanding of what Folksonomy and 'traditional' cataloguing are and how they might work together. The article essentially says that classification is about absolutes - this horse is white, that box is empty - whereas Folksonomy is about subjectivity and relativism. It goes on to compare classification with propositional logic and states that Folksonomy by its nature gives rise to logical contradiction. It strikes me that this misses a significant part of the real value of the approach. In her article, Elaine Peterson says that when we catalogue, we are asking the question 'What is it?'. I couldn't disagree more. What we are really asking is 'What are we going to call this thing (and things relevantly similar to it)?'. In this sense, 'traditional' classification is an act of collective relativism, and is equally subject to the flaws of subjectivity as Folksonomy. I have no doubt that the wave around Folksonomy will eventually pass, and I very much hope that what will be left is an enriched approach to professional classification. There is considerable strength in a hybrid approach which retains the intellectual rigour of ontological standardisation but which equally recognises the additional potential value of large-scale subjective term-attribution. For example, would it not validate our professional beliefs if the subjective interpretations of tens of thousands of people translated up into patterns of meaning which confirmed them? And similarly, if they don't, wouldn't there be considerable value in asking why not? Finally, whatever the linguistic consistency or validity of folksonomic thesauri, we must never underestimate the importance of letting people in. The act of tagging is only partly to do with classification. It is an affirmative act which says 'I want to be involved' and for that alone, it is of tremendous value. Nick Poole Director Museum Documentation Association Nick Poole Director MDA The Spectrum Building, The Michael Young Centre, Purbeck Road, Cambridge, CB2 2PD Telephone: 01223 415 760 http://www.mda.org.uk http://www.collectionsforall.org.uk The revised edition of SPECTRUM, the UK museum documentation standard, is now available. Download it for free at: http://www.mda.org.uk/spectrum.htm -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of amalyah keshet Sent: 18 November 2006 11:00 To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Fwd: folksonomy article Thanks for forwarding this. Good article. Amalyah Keshet At 20:33 17/11/2006, you wrote: Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:41:44 -0800 Sender: Visual Resources Association VRA-L at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU From: Jeanette Mills jcmills at U.WASHINGTON.EDU Subject: folksonomy article To: VRA-L at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Hello everyone -- Considering the recent discussions of folksonomy, I thought this article in the most recent issue of D-Lib might be of interest. I don't think it's been mentioned yet. Beneath the Metadata: Some Philosophical Problems with Folksonomy Elaine Peterson, Montana State University http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november06/peterson/11peterson.html Jeanette = Jeanette C. Mills, MA + MLIS Director of Visual Services Newsletter Editor School of Art, University of Washington jcmills at u dot washington dot edu 206-543-0649 = -- Diane M. Zorich 113 Gallup Road Princeton, NJ 08542 USA Voice: 609-252
[MCN-L] Fwd: folksonomy article
Well said. As Mal Booth replied, folksonomy can scare some people. I think that kind of gets to the crux of the matter, seeing as the library and archives people (and a lot of museums, too!) have done such a fantastic job of classifying everything, and now here's this upstart way of thinking about naming stuff which threatens to undermine that tidy order! Given the shifting nature of language, it would seem to me that folksonomy would assist classification systems - identifying terminologies which are outmoded and outdated. After all, isn't the whole point to help people find and identify stuff? How can they do that if they don't know the words something is classified under? Thus, getting to that hybrid model Nick was suggesting, folksonomy is certainly an aid and not a hindrance. Perian Sully Collection Database and Records Administrator Judah L. Magnes Museum Berkeley, CA Nick Poole nick at mda.org.uk 20/11/2006 4:39 am Jeanette et al, I was really interested in the post around the 'Beneath the Metadata' article. I actually think the article has some pretty deep flaws. First of all, it is not entirely clear why you would apply these philosophical constructs to Folksonomy in the first place and secondly I don't think it helps to further the understanding of what Folksonomy and 'traditional' cataloguing are and how they might work together. The article essentially says that classification is about absolutes - this horse is white, that box is empty - whereas Folksonomy is about subjectivity and relativism. It goes on to compare classification with propositional logic and states that Folksonomy by its nature gives rise to logical contradiction. It strikes me that this misses a significant part of the real value of the approach. In her article, Elaine Peterson says that when we catalogue, we are asking the question 'What is it?'. I couldn't disagree more. What we are really asking is 'What are we going to call this thing (and things relevantly similar to it)?'. In this sense, 'traditional' classification is an act of collective relativism, and is equally subject to the flaws of subjectivity as Folksonomy. I have no doubt that the wave around Folksonomy will eventually pass, and I very much hope that what will be left is an enriched approach to professional classification. There is considerable strength in a hybrid approach which retains the intellectual rigour of ontological standardisation but which equally recognises the additional potential value of large-scale subjective term-attribution. For example, would it not validate our professional beliefs if the subjective interpretations of tens of thousands of people translated up into patterns of meaning which confirmed them? And similarly, if they don't, wouldn't there be considerable value in asking why not? Finally, whatever the linguistic consistency or validity of folksonomic thesauri, we must never underestimate the importance of letting people in. The act of tagging is only partly to do with classification. It is an affirmative act which says 'I want to be involved' and for that alone, it is of tremendous value. Nick Poole Director Museum Documentation Association Nick Poole Director MDA The Spectrum Building, The Michael Young Centre, Purbeck Road, Cambridge, CB2 2PD Telephone: 01223 415 760 http://www.mda.org.uk ( http://www.mda.org.uk/ ) http://www.collectionsforall.org.uk ( http://www.collectionsforall.org.uk/ ) The revised edition of SPECTRUM, the UK museum documentation standard, is now available. Download it for free at: http://www.mda.org.uk/spectrum.htm -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of amalyah keshet Sent: 18 November 2006 11:00 To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Fwd: folksonomy article Thanks for forwarding this. Good article. Amalyah Keshet At 20:33 17/11/2006, you wrote: Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:41:44 -0800 Sender: Visual Resources Association VRA-L at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU From: Jeanette Mills jcmills at U.WASHINGTON.EDU Subject: folksonomy article To: VRA-L at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Hello everyone -- Considering the recent discussions of folksonomy, I thought this article in the most recent issue of D-Lib might be of interest. I don't think it's been mentioned yet. Beneath the Metadata: Some Philosophical Problems with Folksonomy Elaine Peterson, Montana State University http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november06/peterson/11peterson.html Jeanette = Jeanette C. Mills, MA + MLIS Director of Visual Services Newsletter Editor School of Art, University of Washington jcmills at u dot washington dot edu 206-543-0649 = -- Diane M. Zorich 113 Gallup Road Princeton, NJ
[MCN-L] Fwd: folksonomy article
Along those lines... I have always found that filtering the log of a website for search transactions is an invaluable and interesting tool for assessing the content the site is delivering. Particularly useful are reasonable searches that returned no results for they are an indicator of content gaps. I think that folksonomies can be useful to formal classification structures in a similar way. For example, asking the residents of Philadelphia to pitch in on building the set of micro-neighborhoods (The Brickyard, The Valley, etc) within the standard (and beloved!) set (Germantown, Old City, Northern Liberties, ...) might add a vibrant layer to the structure of an oral history site. I think we all agree that we are grateful for the formal structures and the intellectual heavy lifting they represent. I expect we also all agree that they reflect their time and their architects and that they need to evolve. My suggestion - let the Classifiers and the Folksonomers sit down at a Tavern twice a year and work it out. Bob Leming Rock River Star -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Perian Sully Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 11:28 AM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Fwd: folksonomy article Well said. As Mal Booth replied, folksonomy can scare some people. I think that kind of gets to the crux of the matter, seeing as the library and archives people (and a lot of museums, too!) have done such a fantastic job of classifying everything, and now here's this upstart way of thinking about naming stuff which threatens to undermine that tidy order! Given the shifting nature of language, it would seem to me that folksonomy would assist classification systems - identifying terminologies which are outmoded and outdated. After all, isn't the whole point to help people find and identify stuff? How can they do that if they don't know the words something is classified under? Thus, getting to that hybrid model Nick was suggesting, folksonomy is certainly an aid and not a hindrance. Perian Sully Collection Database and Records Administrator Judah L. Magnes Museum Berkeley, CA Nick Poole nick at mda.org.uk 20/11/2006 4:39 am Jeanette et al, I was really interested in the post around the 'Beneath the Metadata' article. I actually think the article has some pretty deep flaws. First of all, it is not entirely clear why you would apply these philosophical constructs to Folksonomy in the first place and secondly I don't think it helps to further the understanding of what Folksonomy and 'traditional' cataloguing are and how they might work together. The article essentially says that classification is about absolutes - this horse is white, that box is empty - whereas Folksonomy is about subjectivity and relativism. It goes on to compare classification with propositional logic and states that Folksonomy by its nature gives rise to logical contradiction. It strikes me that this misses a significant part of the real value of the approach. In her article, Elaine Peterson says that when we catalogue, we are asking the question 'What is it?'. I couldn't disagree more. What we are really asking is 'What are we going to call this thing (and things relevantly similar to it)?'. In this sense, 'traditional' classification is an act of collective relativism, and is equally subject to the flaws of subjectivity as Folksonomy. I have no doubt that the wave around Folksonomy will eventually pass, and I very much hope that what will be left is an enriched approach to professional classification. There is considerable strength in a hybrid approach which retains the intellectual rigour of ontological standardisation but which equally recognises the additional potential value of large-scale subjective term-attribution. For example, would it not validate our professional beliefs if the subjective interpretations of tens of thousands of people translated up into patterns of meaning which confirmed them? And similarly, if they don't, wouldn't there be considerable value in asking why not? Finally, whatever the linguistic consistency or validity of folksonomic thesauri, we must never underestimate the importance of letting people in. The act of tagging is only partly to do with classification. It is an affirmative act which says 'I want to be involved' and for that alone, it is of tremendous value. Nick Poole Director Museum Documentation Association Nick Poole Director MDA The Spectrum Building, The Michael Young Centre, Purbeck Road, Cambridge, CB2 2PD Telephone: 01223 415 760 http://www.mda.org.uk ( http://www.mda.org.uk/ ) http://www.collectionsforall.org.uk ( http://www.collectionsforall.org.uk/ ) The revised edition of SPECTRUM, the UK museum documentation standard, is now available. Download it for free at: http://www.mda.org.uk/spectrum.htm
[MCN-L] Fwd: folksonomy article
Jeanette et al, I was really interested in the post around the 'Beneath the Metadata' article. I actually think the article has some pretty deep flaws. First of all, it is not entirely clear why you would apply these philosophical constructs to Folksonomy in the first place and secondly I don't think it helps to further the understanding of what Folksonomy and 'traditional' cataloguing are and how they might work together. The article essentially says that classification is about absolutes - this horse is white, that box is empty - whereas Folksonomy is about subjectivity and relativism. It goes on to compare classification with propositional logic and states that Folksonomy by its nature gives rise to logical contradiction. It strikes me that this misses a significant part of the real value of the approach. In her article, Elaine Peterson says that when we catalogue, we are asking the question 'What is it?'. I couldn't disagree more. What we are really asking is 'What are we going to call this thing (and things relevantly similar to it)?'. In this sense, 'traditional' classification is an act of collective relativism, and is equally subject to the flaws of subjectivity as Folksonomy. I have no doubt that the wave around Folksonomy will eventually pass, and I very much hope that what will be left is an enriched approach to professional classification. There is considerable strength in a hybrid approach which retains the intellectual rigour of ontological standardisation but which equally recognises the additional potential value of large-scale subjective term-attribution. For example, would it not validate our professional beliefs if the subjective interpretations of tens of thousands of people translated up into patterns of meaning which confirmed them? And similarly, if they don't, wouldn't there be considerable value in asking why not? Finally, whatever the linguistic consistency or validity of folksonomic thesauri, we must never underestimate the importance of letting people in. The act of tagging is only partly to do with classification. It is an affirmative act which says 'I want to be involved' and for that alone, it is of tremendous value. Nick Poole Director Museum Documentation Association Nick Poole Director MDA The Spectrum Building, The Michael Young Centre, Purbeck Road, Cambridge, CB2 2PD Telephone: 01223 415 760 http://www.mda.org.uk http://www.collectionsforall.org.uk The revised edition of SPECTRUM, the UK museum documentation standard, is now available. Download it for free at: http://www.mda.org.uk/spectrum.htm -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of amalyah keshet Sent: 18 November 2006 11:00 To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Fwd: folksonomy article Thanks for forwarding this. Good article. Amalyah Keshet At 20:33 17/11/2006, you wrote: Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:41:44 -0800 Sender: Visual Resources Association VRA-L at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU From: Jeanette Mills jcmills at U.WASHINGTON.EDU Subject: folksonomy article To: VRA-L at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Hello everyone -- Considering the recent discussions of folksonomy, I thought this article in the most recent issue of D-Lib might be of interest. I don't think it's been mentioned yet. Beneath the Metadata: Some Philosophical Problems with Folksonomy Elaine Peterson, Montana State University http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november06/peterson/11peterson.html Jeanette = Jeanette C. Mills, MA + MLIS Director of Visual Services Newsletter Editor School of Art, University of Washington jcmills at u dot washington dot edu 206-543-0649 = -- Diane M. Zorich 113 Gallup Road Princeton, NJ 08542 USA Voice: 609-252-1606 Fax: 609-252-1607 Email: dzorich at mindspring.com Amalyah Keshet Head of Image Resources Copyright Management The Israel Museum, Jerusalem Tel +972-2-670-8874 Fax +972-2-670-8064 ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
[MCN-L] Fwd: folksonomy article
Here, here! It isn't an either/or situation most people are suggesting. Much of the language we use and many of the assumptions we make in museums, libraries and archives simply scares people off or bores them to death. Folksonomies can help us. Mal ___ Mal Booth Head of Research Centre Australian War Memorial GPO Box 345 Canberra ACT 2601 +61 2 6243 4250 +61 2 6243 4545 (fax) +61 0403 378627 mal.booth at awm.gov.au Read my blog http://blog.awm.gov.au/lawrence/ ( http://blog.awm.gov.au/lawrence/ ) Nick Poole nick at mda.org.uk 20/11/2006 4:39 am Jeanette et al, I was really interested in the post around the 'Beneath the Metadata' article. I actually think the article has some pretty deep flaws. First of all, it is not entirely clear why you would apply these philosophical constructs to Folksonomy in the first place and secondly I don't think it helps to further the understanding of what Folksonomy and 'traditional' cataloguing are and how they might work together. The article essentially says that classification is about absolutes - this horse is white, that box is empty - whereas Folksonomy is about subjectivity and relativism. It goes on to compare classification with propositional logic and states that Folksonomy by its nature gives rise to logical contradiction. It strikes me that this misses a significant part of the real value of the approach. In her article, Elaine Peterson says that when we catalogue, we are asking the question 'What is it?'. I couldn't disagree more. What we are really asking is 'What are we going to call this thing (and things relevantly similar to it)?'. In this sense, 'traditional' classification is an act of collective relativism, and is equally subject to the flaws of subjectivity as Folksonomy. I have no doubt that the wave around Folksonomy will eventually pass, and I very much hope that what will be left is an enriched approach to professional classification. There is considerable strength in a hybrid approach which retains the intellectual rigour of ontological standardisation but which equally recognises the additional potential value of large-scale subjective term-attribution. For example, would it not validate our professional beliefs if the subjective interpretations of tens of thousands of people translated up into patterns of meaning which confirmed them? And similarly, if they don't, wouldn't there be considerable value in asking why not? Finally, whatever the linguistic consistency or validity of folksonomic thesauri, we must never underestimate the importance of letting people in. The act of tagging is only partly to do with classification. It is an affirmative act which says 'I want to be involved' and for that alone, it is of tremendous value. Nick Poole Director Museum Documentation Association Nick Poole Director MDA The Spectrum Building, The Michael Young Centre, Purbeck Road, Cambridge, CB2 2PD Telephone: 01223 415 760 http://www.mda.org.uk ( http://www.mda.org.uk/ ) http://www.collectionsforall.org.uk ( http://www.collectionsforall.org.uk/ ) The revised edition of SPECTRUM, the UK museum documentation standard, is now available. Download it for free at: http://www.mda.org.uk/spectrum.htm -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of amalyah keshet Sent: 18 November 2006 11:00 To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Fwd: folksonomy article Thanks for forwarding this. Good article. Amalyah Keshet At 20:33 17/11/2006, you wrote: Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:41:44 -0800 Sender: Visual Resources Association VRA-L at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU From: Jeanette Mills jcmills at U.WASHINGTON.EDU Subject: folksonomy article To: VRA-L at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Hello everyone -- Considering the recent discussions of folksonomy, I thought this article in the most recent issue of D-Lib might be of interest. I don't think it's been mentioned yet. Beneath the Metadata: Some Philosophical Problems with Folksonomy Elaine Peterson, Montana State University http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november06/peterson/11peterson.html Jeanette = Jeanette C. Mills, MA + MLIS Director of Visual Services Newsletter Editor School of Art, University of Washington jcmills at u dot washington dot edu 206-543-0649 = -- Diane M. Zorich 113 Gallup Road Princeton, NJ 08542 USA Voice: 609-252-1606 Fax: 609-252-1607 Email: dzorich at mindspring.com Amalyah Keshet Head of Image Resources Copyright Management The Israel Museum, Jerusalem Tel +972-2-670-8874 Fax +972-2-670-8064 ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http
[MCN-L] Fwd: folksonomy article
Thanks for forwarding this. Good article. Amalyah Keshet At 20:33 17/11/2006, you wrote: Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:41:44 -0800 Sender: Visual Resources Association VRA-L at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU From: Jeanette Mills jcmills at U.WASHINGTON.EDU Subject: folksonomy article To: VRA-L at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Hello everyone -- Considering the recent discussions of folksonomy, I thought this article in the most recent issue of D-Lib might be of interest. I don't think it's been mentioned yet. Beneath the Metadata: Some Philosophical Problems with Folksonomy Elaine Peterson, Montana State University http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november06/peterson/11peterson.html Jeanette = Jeanette C. Mills, MA + MLIS Director of Visual Services Newsletter Editor School of Art, University of Washington jcmills at u dot washington dot edu 206-543-0649 = -- Diane M. Zorich 113 Gallup Road Princeton, NJ 08542 USA Voice: 609-252-1606 Fax: 609-252-1607 Email: dzorich at mindspring.com Amalyah Keshet Head of Image Resources Copyright Management The Israel Museum, Jerusalem Tel +972-2-670-8874 Fax +972-2-670-8064
[MCN-L] Fwd: folksonomy article
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:41:44 -0800 Reply-To: Visual Resources Association VRA-L at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Sender: Visual Resources Association VRA-L at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU From: Jeanette Mills jcmills at U.WASHINGTON.EDU Subject: folksonomy article To: VRA-L at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU List-Help: http://listserv.uark.edu/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=VRA-L, mailto:LISTSERV at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU?body=INFO VRA-L List-Unsubscribe: mailto:VRA-L-unsubscribe-request at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU List-Subscribe: mailto:VRA-L-subscribe-request at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU List-Owner: mailto:VRA-L-request at LISTSERV.UARK.EDU List-Archive: http://listserv.uark.edu/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=VRA-L X-ELNK-Info: spv=0; X-ELNK-AV: 0 X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000; Hello everyone -- Considering the recent discussions of folksonomy, I thought this article in the most recent issue of D-Lib might be of interest. I don't think it's been mentioned yet. Beneath the Metadata: Some Philosophical Problems with Folksonomy Elaine Peterson, Montana State University http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november06/peterson/11peterson.html Jeanette = Jeanette C. Mills, MA + MLIS Director of Visual Services Newsletter Editor School of Art, University of Washington jcmills at u dot washington dot edu 206-543-0649 = -- Diane M. Zorich 113 Gallup Road Princeton, NJ 08542 USA Voice: 609-252-1606 Fax: 609-252-1607 Email: dzorich at mindspring.com
