Comments on: Introduction: Jon Lebkowsky

By: James E. Lee's Blog

James E. Lee's Blog — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 05:38:48 +0000

Add a “STATUS” tag to your notes so you can search by status

Adding STATUS tags to your notes allows you to search for everything that matches a given status. I keep notes on almost every task/project/etc. that I’m managing, whether it’s changing my mobile phone plan, figuring out what we’re doing for Mo…

By: jonl

jonl — Sun, 08 May 2005 15:56:36 +0000

Not sure which you refer to as “above,” but if you mean my reference to “social tagging environments,” I’m not talking about environments within which ’social tags’ are created and used. I’m talking about environments within which tags are created and shared with others – i.e. “social” refers to the environment or, as you cal it, “social atmosphere: – not the tags themselves.

By: goodness

goodness — Sat, 07 May 2005 23:49:07 +0000

hello, i am a student of Clay’s. there’s a distinction being drawn above between instrinsic definition and social definition of tags that is overly binary, i think. the two are interdependent. i already see several types of tags being used on flickr, for example – denotative, connotative, and complex (whole phrases as tag). you cant easily say that all these are automatically social just because they are used in a social atmosphere. denotative tags are meant to strictly describe an item – “dog”, for example. connotative often refer to something indirect, synonymish – “courageous”, if it was applied to the dog example. Both of these types of tags dont seem to be very much about social context, they actually do mean to describe something instrinsic to the content. BUT complex tags definitely are often meant to express something socially communciative – “i hate thesis” tag for example.

By: addtags.com

addtags.com — Fri, 06 May 2005 13:32:06 +0000

Tags are mostly added after a posting is made. I am developing this:
http://op.punt.nl/?r=1&id=225132 Can you give me some reactions ?
Thanks in advance !

By: gravity7

gravity7 — Thu, 05 May 2005 06:20:54 +0000

Clearly there’s a difference between taxonomy and “folksonomy.” (Sorry, going to have to insist on quotation marks with that one for a while. Not sure it’s the right, er, tag…)

The interesting part of the difference though I havent really seen mentioned anywhere. I dont think it’s the actual classifications that result from folksonomic participation (this being the standard distinction between culture and subculture). You say tomato, I say tomato…

What’s interesting is that in a standard taxonomy, categories (associations) are meant to express an intrinsic relation. Folksonomies would, on the other hand, express a social relation. And a social relation ought to make social interests manifest, no?

Shouldn’t a folksonomy thus capture the latent interest among members of a community in this, that, or the other, and render those interests visible? Make what’s subtextual, so to speak, legible.

Tag, who’s it?

Adrian Chan

By: jonl

jonl — Wed, 04 May 2005 19:17:35 +0000

It might just be me, but I think there's a clear difference between spontaneous collaborative categorization by members of a network ("folksonomy") and controlled taxonomies created by professionals. The think the latter are inherently "top-down." I encourage you to listen to Clay's talk, "Ontology is Overrated".

By: Thinking and Making

Thinking and Making — Wed, 04 May 2005 16:26:17 +0000

Folksonomies and taxonomies are the same thing, and both have been around for 40 kajillion years

Taxonomies and folksonomies are the same beast. Both emerge from the experience of a group of people and are recorded in some manner. They’re languages. The suggestion taxonomies are top down is crap. There’s no rule taxonomies are top-down…