"|There's an interesting implication for interoperability here.
|If different institutions are
|using different folksonomic classifications for the same
|thematic groups then they
|can't share semantically meaningful data, which would be kind
|of ironic."
On the point above I forgot to say that (time implications permitting)
museums would also be involved in the process of tagging other museums:
Museum x calls this object a shovel, we at Museum y call it a spade. When a
user finds a spade at Museum y they will also be able to find shovels at x
then User q says - "they're not shovels or spades they're trowels" and tags
them accordingly. Perhaps a bit collections focused that example and not
quite in the spirit of the "inside out museum" but am I in the right ball
park?
I agree that it will be confusing at first - but I suppose there is an
element of community action in this - if a tag isn't popular or a
"falsonomie" is used (how many neoloigisms have been invented in this thread
so far - anyone keeping count?) then it simply won't be used because it
won't be useful.
Perhaps tags should be allowed to decay over time. Different contexts create
new associations so a novel but commonly accepted way of describing
something will pop into existence over night. This might be prompted by an
event in the news for example - these prove useful for a short while then
disappear again once that association loses relevance in the public
consciousness.
Perry
|-----Original Message-----
|From: Nick Poole [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
|Sent: 03 February 2006 10:10
|To: [log in to unmask]
|Subject: Re: Electronic Museum news - Feb 2006
|
|
|Dear Perry,
|
|Funnily enough, work is afoot on the persistent identifiers
|issue. It wouldn't be hard at
|all - there are a few common identifiers currently in use
|across museums (DOMUS
|number, Registration Number, MDA code, possibly a couple of
|others...), so there is a
|sound existing basis for the work.
|
|On folksonomy, time is the thing, and if we are going to
|overcome the fear factor, we
|do need to accept this. As we've seen with existing projects
|like Steve, the initial
|results are pretty chaotic. 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.
|
|All of which means that the results of a folksonomy-led
|approach would look pretty
|odd for a little while before they started to make sense. I
|think we need to be brave nd
|not try to quality-control the process while it is emerging (I
|want to coin a new term -
|falsonomies - for what happens when people deliberately put in
|incorrect
|classifications, just for fun).
|
|There's an interesting implication for interoperability here.
|If different institutions are
|using different folksonomic classifications for the same
|thematic groups then they
|can't share semantically meaningful data, which would be kind
|of ironic. That's why
|I'm into the idea of aggregating the process of generating
|folksonomies so that the
|ontologies themselves become part of a distributed
|commonly-accessible web
|service.
|
|My head hurts, but this is a top strand!
|
|Nick
|
|
|
|On 3 Feb 2006 at 9:49, Bonewell, Perry wrote:
|
|> "So the challenge for all cultural publishers, as I see it, in
|> |this Web 2.0 era, is to find ways to imprint on published
|> |objects at the tiniest, lowest level, metadata clues to things
|> |like institutional identity, museological values and agreed
|> |semantic connective terms or tags. "
|>
|> This process should be put into motion now. An online register or
|> resource with persistent identifiers for all museums could be set up
|> fairly easily I think.
|>
|> Plus - if we're keen on the public adding their own tags and
|> folksonomies why shouldn't we be comfortable with Museums doing the
|> same thing for their own collections?
|>
|> This would express institutional identity and while there would be
|> minor variations in categorisation (if everyone were left to
|their own
|> devices - and why not) as long as broad descriptions were
|enforced at
|> a more general level the specifics could be left to take care of
|> themselves.
|>
|> If the folksonomie model is going to be embraced then over time the
|> public will add their own tags - museum taxonomies would become just
|> another way of describing the same things (in the context of the www
|> that is).
|>
|> As long as it can be ensured that visitors, users,
|aggregators or web
|> applications know exactly where the information is coming from and
|> that it is authentic, why worry about creating more standards?
|>
|> Its not as if we're asking the public to rewrite our own
|databases for
|> us.
|>
|> Perry
|>
|> Great thread this BTW!
|>
|> |-----Original Message-----
|> |From: Jon Pratty [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
|> |Sent: 02 February 2006 15:49
|> |To: [log in to unmask]
|> |Subject: Re: Electronic Museum news - Feb 2006
|> |
|> |
|> |Brian
|> |
|> |It may have been Lorcan, but it's also been one of the key
|> |phrases we've used about RSS for the last three three years -
|> |we're taking content out to meet the user, rather than trying
|> |to attract the user towards the content.
|> |As you say, Brian, this all sounds simple, but if you think
|> |about the implications of it, we're now getting into a
|> |situation where we are publishing 'particles' of content to be
|> |discovered in search engines. This calls for new kinds of
|> |marketing techniques. Yes, we need to consider how to brand
|> |the content in this new digital environment. We need to
|> |signify it as coming from an accredited museum or gallery
|> |source; it needs to stand out in a Google search as being
|> |trustworthy and 'official'.
|> |
|> |So the challenge for all cultural publishers, as I see it, in
|> |this Web 2.0 era, is to find ways to imprint on published
|> |objects at the tiniest, lowest level, metadata clues to things
|> |like institutional identity, museological values and agreed
|> |semantic connective terms or tags.
|> |
|> |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: Brian Kelly [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
|> |Sent: 02 February 2006 13:35
|> |To: [log in to unmask]
|> |Subject: Re: Electronic Museum news - Feb 2006
|> |
|> |
|> |On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 16:01:24 -0000, Jon Pratty
|> |<[log in to unmask]>
|> |wrote:
|> |
|> |>Brian, Nick, Mike et al.
|> |...
|> |>I'm producing a paper for Museums and the Web (yes, I know it's
|> late!) |about some of the ideas raised in this thread. Have a look
|> |here:
|http://www.archimuse.com/mw2006/abstracts/prg_300000787.html |
|> |Hi Jon | I like the title "The Inside Out Web Museum". Was in
|> Lorcan |Dempsey who talked about "the library going to the
|user rather
|> |than the user going to the Library" in a Web 2.0 world (soory |I
|> can't find the reference). Anyway your article seems to |have some
|> similarlites with that thought. | |>Worrying about whether certain
|> technologies are 'stable' is important. | |But let's not forget that
|> Web 2.0 isn't just about |technnologies - it's a descriptive term
|> (just as terms such as |"Blairite" or "Thatcherite" aren't formal
|> definitions, but may |help to provide a shared understanding). | |So
|> as regards the hype over 'mashups', let;'s not get too
||worried about
|> whether the technologies are mature - let's |remember that
|the Library
|> world has been working on combining |catlogues for many
|years and has
|> a great deal of experiences |in both the technocal aspects and the
|> social/human aspects |"But I'll lose my library's
|branding"). | |Brian
|> | |>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 |>
|> |>************************************************** |>For mcg
|> information and to manage your subscription to the |list, visit |>the
|> |website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
|> |>**************************************************
|> |>==============================================================
|> |========= |>= | |**************************************************
|> |For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the |list,
|> visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
|> |************************************************** |
|> |************************************************** |For mcg
|> information and to manage your subscription to the |list, visit the
|> website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
|> |************************************************** |
|>
|>
|______________________________________________________________________
|> ______ This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and may
|> also be legally privileged. They are intended solely for the
|intended
|> addressee. If you are not the addressee please e-mail it back to the
|> sender and then immediately, permanently delete it. Do not read,
|> print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it. This
|e-mail may be
|> monitored by Bolton MBC in accordance with current regulations.
|>
|> This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept
|> for the presence of computer viruses currently known to the Council.
|> However, the recipient is responsible for virus-checking before
|> opening this message and any attachment.
|>
|> Unless expressly stated to the contrary, any views expressed in this
|> message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily
|> reflect the views of Bolton MBC.
|>
|> http://www.bolton.gov.uk
|>
|______________________________________________________________________
|> ______
|>
|>
|>
|> **************************************************
|> For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the
|list, visit
|> the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
|> **************************************************
|
|
|
|Nick Poole
|Director
|MDA
|
|The Spectrum Building
|The Michael Young Centre
|Purbeck Road
|Cambridge
|CB2 2PD
|
|Telephone: 01223 415 760
|Email: [log in to unmask]
|Website: http://www.mda.org.uk
|
|**************************************************
|For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the
|list, visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
|**************************************************
|
____________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and may also be legally
privileged. They are intended solely for the intended addressee. If you are
not the addressee please e-mail it back to the sender and then immediately,
permanently delete it. Do not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in
reliance on it. This e-mail may be monitored by Bolton MBC in accordance
with current regulations.
This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept for the
presence of computer viruses currently known to the Council. However, the
recipient is responsible for virus-checking before opening this message and
any attachment.
Unless expressly stated to the contrary, any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views
of Bolton MBC.
http://www.bolton.gov.uk
____________________________________________________________________________
**************************************************
For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
**************************************************
|