All buit with http://www.anymeta.net a semantic web based, meta info matching development framework.

Whenever we do a seminar or presentation, we create private bookmarks on a social bookmarking site tagging all the resources/tools/websites, etc. we mention and give that to attendees as a “takeaway” and “resource center.”

We also use tagging when submitting complex proposals to clients as a convenient way to help them review relevant examples of work.

Company: Consumating
Launched: 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Overview:

Consumating is dating 2.0. Yes, it’s dating with tags. They also use a bit of Ajax in their interface.
After registering (it’s free), you create an online profile. The …

I use an open souce system, drupal, that we have added tagging to for internal and external enterprise blogging. We also support a rich taxonomy. on display here, http://www.advancinginsights.com/mybiz

isn’t it just a matter of defining “folk” for any specific case? sometimes the “folk” in a “folksonomy” are staff members of a content-creating organization, rather than the “general public”. but ease-of-use-tagging GUIs, immediate feedback loop on the effects of one’s tagging actions, “set theory” aggregation features, bootstrapping the effectiveness of a system by amplifying repeated users’ behaviors, a general philosophy of “this isn’t perfect, but it is far better than nothing, and it scales well”, as well as other aspects of the “folksonomy” approach to describing content are basically the same as what we’ve seen in some content management contexts.

however, issues like synonyms and misspellings can be quite troubling for content businesses and organizations with an editorial reputation to uphold. the “turkey/Turkey” problem has historically not been likely to be tolerated in this type of context, and this eventually causes someone to think “hey, we need a controlled vocabulary!” then, to “enforce” the CV, “tagging” becomesa more and more complex task; motivation can become an issue, especially without positive “this is what happens when you add good tags!” feedback loops already in place.

some (and i include myself in this group) feel that there is great benefit to be had by combining the best aspects of the “folksonomy” approach with the best parts of the “controlled vocabs” approach. no, not by forcing “taggers” to choose terms from a CV or conform to a taxonomy, but by adding a robust “admin” layer staffed by “librarians”, mostly to link up synonyms, organize post-facto heirarchies for consumers to browse, etc; basically, some people “tagging the tags”.

point is, use a “folksonomy” approach for metadata contribution, with no requirements other than typing into a text box and checking out what happens next, possibly then adjusting one’s tags as per feedback loop… meanwhile, make the system as “editorially responsible” as the business deems neccesary, with admin/librarians nudging the system where neccesary (for instance, the “turkey/Turkey” issue, where the system could be config’d to raise a “disambiguate me!” flag upon each use).

i suppose i could be accused of trying to serve two masters at once here, and neither well! at least inside the enterprise, though, i’ve observed approaches along the lines i’ve described above work quite well, so i advocate a “best of both worlds” approach. “folksonomy” and “a formally organized information space” aren’t mutually exclusive; we can see them complement each other, especially inside the enterprise.

as mr shirky suggests, “ontology” CAN BE useful in certain contexts, but probably not for organizing the ENTIRE WEB in one go…

(BTW, howdee xian!)