This sounds similar to something I proposed on an RDF mailing list a
year ago. If we tagged by wikipedia terms/uris (which try to name
themselves so as to remove any ambiguity), then we could use the
relationships that wikipedia entries have (in the wiki code, and are
exportable as XML) to establish the relationships between terms, and
hence items tagged by those terms.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Jon
> Pratty
> Sent: 03 February 2006 17:16
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Electronic Museum news - Feb 2006
>
> Replying to Mike's post - there might be some interesting work being
done
> here: http://structuredblogging.org/index.php
> And the interest is that it seems to be an effort to cluster content
> around consensually agreed tags. Then again I might be imagining this,
as
> it's friday at ten past five!
>
>
> Jon Pratty
>
> Editor
> 24 Hour Museum
> 01273 820052
> 07739 287392
> [log in to unmask]
>
> The National Virtual Museum
> Britain's Best Museum and Gallery website - Web User Magazine
> Best Educational Website, New Statesman New Media Awards, 2005
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Lowndes [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 03 February 2006 16:35
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Electronic Museum news - Feb 2006
>
>
> Nick wrote:
> ...It's only when you have a significant number of people
> contributing from different contexts that large-scale stable patterns
of
> classification
> begin to appear.
>
> Do they? I've been looking around a few of the 'tag cloud' using sites
and
> I don't find much evidence of this or any other really useful
'groupings'
> of terms into 'relationship clusters' to help with finding stuff.
Pretty
> chaotic the lot of them. Please point me at a good, example if you
know
> one, anyone.
>
> Looking at flickr for instance- for the tag paris, related tags today
are
> just 3, : francia, rodin, airport . Thats a pretty random bunch at
best
> - there's no meaning behind it apart from the fact that a photo has
been
> tagged with paris and these terms by n people. It does not help me
'expand
> my query' from paris in any meaningful way. More hit and miss than
Google?
> Tags are VERY specific - too specific to be very useful unless tied
into
> something more formal? (c.f. Brian's earlier post)
>
> cheers
> Mike
**************************************************
For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
**************************************************
|