A paradigm for Tagging-services in the knowledge society
Presentation by Michael Derntl (Research Lab for Educational Technologies, University of Vienna, Paderborn, Brno) at the 1st World Summit of the Open Knowledge Society, Athens, 24-26 September 2008. Track: Social & Humanistic Computing for the Knowledge Society: Emerging Technologies and Systems for the Society and Humanity.
Structure: semantic data organization and tagging; inclusive social tagging, analysis of current Web2.0 services
Traditionally tags are words or phrases for organizing, searching, and finding objects. Social tagging and folksonomies are tags created by a community of users (in this sense folksonomy is the vocabularly used for a common set of resources). Display of social tags and folksonomy in tag clouds.
Universal accessibility: A product or service is universally accessible, if it can be used by persons regardless of their capabilities, skills, and characteristics. This includes high quality interaction, availability to anywere, anytime (mobile devices).
Inclusiveness: Universal accessibility + minimal technological preconditions. Generally, tagging seems more easily to create and use in contrast to e.g. metadata.
Message: “Inclusive Social Tagging is proposed as a theoretic, basic concept of social tagging in Web 2.0 to make it amenable to analysis, evaluation, and evolution based on issues relevant to today’s knowledge society”
Very nice talk, well-structured, not to abstract but not to detailed for the scope of the WSKS.
Apart from this work, the Research Lab for Educational Technologies aims at using technologies in education and analysis the respective effect. In particular, education shall move from the traditional forms to a more interactive experience. Interactivity in this sense refers to a human-2-human interaction, i.e. between students and tutor or between students in a learning communities. Here various technologies are used, such as forums, blogs, chats. The lab develops its own technologies for this purpose and evaluates its usefulness in university courses. However, making documents more interactive or facilitating interaction between humans and learning objects is not their focus (in contrast to the math education community who currently widely focusses on interactive mathematical tools such as GeoGebra, DME, ect.)
[...] Maybe this conflicts with the definitions in the inclusive tagging paper (WSKS) as the authors distinguish between different levels of annotation (from tag to formal metadata). [...]
[...] Inclusive Social Tagging [...]