JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CETIS-METADATA Archives


CETIS-METADATA Archives

CETIS-METADATA Archives


CETIS-METADATA@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CETIS-METADATA Home

CETIS-METADATA Home

CETIS-METADATA  May 2005

CETIS-METADATA May 2005

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Do they mean metadata?!

From:

Steve Richardson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Steve Richardson <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 9 May 2005 13:21:29 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (587 lines)

heh heh... AGAIN,, I wonder if any of you have actually read the paper 
we wrote,, or the emails I sent - one of the major positive benefits of 
RESULTs was that you can store the same resource in as many different 
classification systems as you like; formal, personal, community derived, 
a special categorisation system for odd tuesdays in months with the 
letter n in them,, it doesnt matter!!

when are people going to stop thinking in one, two or even three 
dimensions and realise there is an infinite number of dimensions to play 
with?

and surely you mean hhgttg!!!

Kind regards
Steve

Vashti Zarach wrote:

>And I'd like a copy of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy in my library...(in
>response to Sarah's comment on Wikis and Encyclopedias).
>
>Oh, and with my librarian hat on, I also agree with George's points. Information
>searching is a skill like any other, not everyone is good at sifting by
>eyeballing. [How do I know this: well, I'm rubbish at changing lightbulbs and
>anything practical, and have to ask for help; but I happen to be experienced at
>sifting by eyeball, and often get asked informally by friends who aren't to
>help them find resources and information - I expect most trained librarians get
>this.]
>
>Without your own pocket librarian to help, metadata and subject schemes help
>because they ensure that similar things are grouped together, whether
>physically or virtually. If you don't do this accurately, everything's
>scattered, which stops people finding things by association. It's like getting
>a library and putting Lord of the Rings under the jewellery section. How will
>any fantasy lover ever find it? Ok that was an extreme example, but it
>illustrates the perils of rougly categorising things.
>
>Vashti
>
>P.S. Hello Sarah
>
>Quoting Sarah Currier <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>  
>
>>Did I hear my name?
>>
>>I'm so enjoying watching this from the sidelines for a change. But I do 
>>feel compelled to respond to George's email, poor netiquette tho this is:
>>
>>"Yeah!"
>>
>>Sarah
>>P.S. And for those who are following the Wikis discussion on the 
>>VLE-Interest list, I also think Wikipedia is great, but would like my 
>>library to stock the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
>>
>>George Macgregor wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>This is a fun one! A few brief comments below...
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>No problem.  Sarah Currier informed me that people enjoy controversy on
>>>      
>>>
>>this
>>    
>>
>>>list!  ;-)  Unfortunately, I don't agree with much that you said, but here
>>>are some brief(ish) comments regarding some of your comments:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>It depends on your expectation of results, and tolerance for ambiguity.
>>>>I think most general users are quite happy to live with clashing tags,
>>>>ambiguous tags, and so on, as long as there are sufficient hits to sift
>>>>by eyeballing. I think this holds for LOs too.
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Why should users be 'quite happy' this poor precision?  That's quite a
>>>defeatist attitude.  If I conduct a search, I expect (or at least hope)
>>>      
>>>
>>that
>>    
>>
>>>I will experience decent recall, but ultimately good precision - the aim of
>>>any good information retrieval system.  Naturally, Web search engines based
>>>on post-coordinate indexing have been bereft of this latter concept.  If I
>>>want to discover material (via Google, say) written by Adam Smith, I will
>>>retrieve, not only information written by Adam Smith, but all information
>>>about the history of Adam Smith, his role in the Scottish Enlightenment,
>>>      
>>>
>>and
>>    
>>
>>>other information.  Thus, the lack of metadata makes precise searching
>>>difficult.  Numerous user information seeking behaviour studies have proven
>>>that current users will not be content with sifting through pages of
>>>      
>>>
>>results
>>    
>>
>>>in the vain hope of finding something relevant to their original search
>>>query (in fact, they often abandon their search task if their query isn't
>>>satisfied within the first page of results!).  Given the weighty metadata
>>>standards used, eyeballing shouldn't be necessary for LOs or even
>>>      
>>>
>>considered
>>    
>>
>>>sufficient.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Popularity and the 'wisdom of crowds'. If 1914332  records are tagged
>>>>with "theology" and 1 with "theolojy", I'm going to assume the latter
>>>>is a typo. Also, subject are by nature pretty nebulous and paradoxical
>>>>concepts (see, for example, the tortuous attempts of Foucault to
>>>>describe the nature of "subject" in the Archaeology of Knowledge).
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Yes, it is tortuous, but that's why controlled vocabularies exist!  A
>>>specialist team agonise over the best way to describe a single concept so
>>>that we don't have to agonise over the best way to describe an information
>>>entity.  'Yes', subjects can be nebulous, but there are rules and
>>>conventions in controlled subject schemes (that have evolved over hundreds
>>>of years) to ensure the practitioner accurately characterises the nature of
>>>an information resource.  If, by your own admission, subjects are nebulous,
>>>how can the 'wisdom of crowds' approach possibly prevail? Answer: it can't.
>>>An independent arbiter is required (i.e. the controlled subject scheme). 
>>>      
>>>
>>At
>>    
>>
>>>least there exists elaborate rules and conventions to improve retrieval
>>>relevance and consistency.
>>>
>>>The approach you suggest would lead to scenarios whereby homonymy callously
>>>rules the information society! Over time users wouldn't be able to find
>>>anything.  Resources would be tagged with subject headings that are far too
>>>broad to support precise retrieval (at a time when greater precision is
>>>sorely required).  The 'taggers' wouldn't know whether their resource
>>>relates to 'Theology' (which would constitute a very broad heading) or
>>>'Religion' (which would also constitute a very broad heading about the same
>>>subject).  In addition, resources wouldn't necessarily be accurately
>>>characterised.  Is the wisdom of the crowd likely to note that their
>>>resource meets the following (very simple) citation order?
>>>
>>>'Religion > Philosophy & theory of religion > Theodicy'
>>>
>>>Without specialist training, probably not.  They would likely just tag it
>>>with 'Religion' or 'Theology' or 'Spirituality' or 'Theolojy' and on and
>>>      
>>>
>>on,
>>    
>>
>>>which would unquestionably be too broad. They would also not use qualifiers
>>>to assist others in determining whether a resource tagged with 'Boxers' is
>>>about the sport or about dogs?  Is this really adequate, or even
>>>      
>>>
>>sufficient?
>>    
>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>In the uncontrolled environment, social factors come into play. How do
>>>>we *really* discover academic resources today? By reputation, by
>>>>recommendation, by references in known works. I think the assumption
>>>>you're making is that the user is acting in a very isolated way, which
>>>>I don't think is the case. On the contrary, the folksonomy approach
>>>>assumes community. This may itself be a restriction upon the domains
>>>>where it is an effective tool, and I think is one of the research
>>>>topics that would be of interest.
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>In many ways, the user has never been as isolated as he/she is today.  The
>>>pedagogical paradigm shift to greater problem based learning and
>>>constructivist learning has witnessed a proliferation of students directing
>>>their very own learning experience, often within elaborate ICT architecture
>>>or VLEs (as well you know).  Obviously, social factors are important, and
>>>have always been.  The automatic response of most users experiencing an
>>>information gap is, after all, to ask a friend.  The folksonomy approach
>>>      
>>>
>>may
>>    
>>
>>>assume community (which is certainly desirable), but it isn't likely to
>>>      
>>>
>>fill
>>    
>>
>>>any information gaps or get information users from A to B (unless one is
>>>confined to a strict community of practice where the knowledge collection
>>>      
>>>
>>is
>>    
>>
>>>extremely shallow).  This is, as you say, an interesting area of research,
>>>but I sincerely doubt whether the entire intellectual output and knowledge
>>>of the entire world could be adequately characterised or harnessed by a
>>>wisdom of crowds approach.
>>>
>>>An important thing to remember is that once upon a time, when all
>>>information assumed a physical form, practitioners assigned
>>>      
>>>
>>folksonomy-style
>>    
>>
>>>terms to their resources.  However, it soon became clear that the library
>>>was thrown into disarray and that a suitable methodology had to be
>>>      
>>>
>>developed
>>    
>>
>>>to facilitate resource discovery.  The electronic environment is no
>>>different. It's all information, just in a different format. Many LIS
>>>practices have evolved over hundreds of years and were developed for good
>>>reason.  I often feel that some of us try to 'reinvent the wheel' and
>>>      
>>>
>>ignore
>>    
>>
>>>important lessons from the not-to-distant past, that's all.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>George
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------
>>>George Macgregor,
>>>Centre for Digital Library Research (CDLR),
>>>Department of Computer & Information Sciences,
>>>University of Strathclyde, Livingstone Tower,
>>>26 Richmond Street, Glasgow, UK, G1 1XH
>>>tel: +44 (0)141 548 4753
>>>web: http://cdlr.strath.ac.uk/
>>>--------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Scott Wilson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>Sent: 08 May 2005 04:36
>>>>To: George Macgregor
>>>>Cc: [log in to unmask]
>>>>Subject: Re: Do they mean metadata?!
>>>>
>>>>This is a fun one! A few brief comments below...
>>>>
>>>>On 6 May 2005, at 23:18, George Macgregor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>>One thing is certain - the days of mandated taxonomy, static systems
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>controlled vocabularies (in the strictest sense) are numbered!
>>>>>>       
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>This is an extremely curious statement for the CETIS-METADATA list and
>>>>>one
>>>>>that I find to be erroneous.
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>I think critically evaluating our dearly-held assumption is part of
>>>>what we do in the SIGs. I like statements like this (and not just about
>>>>metadata!!)
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>True, there are some merits to a folksonomy
>>>>>(esp. for browsing & serendipity) and more research should certainly be
>>>>>undertaken to ascertain their *relative* potential. But - and this is
>>>>>a big
>>>>>'but' - these benefits tend to reside within small pockets of practice
>>>>>(i.e.
>>>>>Del.icio.us and Flickr) and it remains difficult to envisage how such
>>>>>techniques can be applied out-with these contexts.
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>These "small pockets of practice" are larger by several orders of
>>>>magnitude than the 'small pockets of practice' that exist with, say,
>>>>LOM. in the big picture of the 'net, folksonomies are the 80,
>>>>controlled systems are the 20. (OK, its really more like no taxon 99%,
>>>>folksonomy 0.9%, controlled, 0.1%)
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>How, for instance, is such an approach expected to scale, particularly
>>>>>in
>>>>>those ubiquitous distributed systems involving users from more than one
>>>>>cultural context?  (It's worth noting that even within the UK the
>>>>>problem of
>>>>>regional cultural contexts is already problematic with respect to
>>>>>subject
>>>>>retrieval).  Closer to home, how is such a system to be usefully
>>>>>applied
>>>>>with the deposit of learning objects and the distributed searching of
>>>>>those
>>>>>learning object repositories?
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>It depends on your expectation of results, and tolerance for ambiguity.
>>>>I think most general users are quite happy to live with clashing tags,
>>>>ambiguous tags, and so on, as long as there are sufficient hits to sift
>>>>by eyeballing. I think this holds for LOs too.
>>>>
>>>>In practice, there are probably a few compelling controlled
>>>>vocabularies related to the 'official' areas of LOs, such as
>>>>relationship to quality standards and curriculum models, but for the
>>>>rest, folksonomy tagging is probably 'good enough'. Not perfect, not
>>>>completely accurate. But good enough.
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Given the high probability of subject tagging ambiguity, the lack of
>>>>>synonym
>>>>>control, variant spellings, variant punctuation, name authority
>>>>>control, not
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Popularity and the 'wisdom of crowds'. If 1914332  records are tagged
>>>>with "theology" and 1 with "theolojy", I'm going to assume the latter
>>>>is a typo. Also, subject are by nature pretty nebulous and paradoxical
>>>>concepts (see, for example, the tortuous attempts of Foucault to
>>>>describe the nature of "subject" in the Archaeology of Knowledge).
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>to mention the fact the majority of users suffer from the Belkin's
>>>>>infamous
>>>>>'Anomalies State of Knowledge' (and are therefore often incapable of
>>>>>formulating search queries, let alone assigning meaningful subjects
>>>>>descriptors), I find it highly questionable that such a "scheme" could
>>>>>ever
>>>>>be used effectively to support meaningful resource discovery and
>>>>>distributed
>>>>>searching.
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>And yet the vast majority of internet users somehow get by. How?
>>>>Reputation, word of mouth, trial and error, advertising,
>>>>contextualization, visual sifting, pure serendipity. The point about
>>>>folksonomy is that it isn't the definitive discovery mechanism; it
>>>>augments existing non-rigorous discovery approaches that are 'good
>>>>enough'.
>>>>
>>>>Meaning can emerge, as well as be imposed; classification can be (or
>>>>always is?) a political act, and folksonomy can be evangelised as a
>>>>democratization of knowledge classification.
>>>>
>>>>As my old mate Foucault postulated, "knowledge is power" may be true in
>>>>the same sense as "might equals right".
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>In addition, even if all of the above could be reconciled, there
>>>>>are still issues pertaining to the semantic relationships and the
>>>>>syntactic
>>>>>relationships of all the terms / subject captions used by the
>>>>>folksonomy to
>>>>>describe information entities. Would these important relationships be
>>>>>dispensed with?
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>The semantic relations of terms exist 'out there' as well as in formal
>>>>taxonomy, and can be inferred by proximity in discovery, and by
>>>>association to originators.
>>>>
>>>>How we construct meaning is by associating, dividing, and qualifying
>>>>categories of entities; in general I think human beings are pretty good
>>>>at this, even if librarians may disagree with their evaluations
>>>>sometimes :-)
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Indeed, it remains to be seen how a system (underpinned by a
>>>>>folksonomy) could be effectively mined so as to increase IR precision,
>>>>>even
>>>>>by intelligent agents. Users would simply experience high recall or no
>>>>>results at all.  And, of course, it goes without saying that meaningful
>>>>>resource discovery or distributed searching would be an unviable
>>>>>proposition
>>>>>which, to my mind, is an unwelcome scenario when we should be 'thinking
>>>>>globally before acting locally' in the 21st century.
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Tags are not the only source; there is also the content - tags just
>>>>provide hints. I don't imagine mining tags will be very productive, but
>>>>its amazing what Google manages with much less.
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Further, the assumption that users have the necessary skills, the will
>>>>>or
>>>>>the infinite time required to engage with an ever expanding world of
>>>>>knowledge so that subject mappings (a 'pattern of relationships') can
>>>>>be
>>>>>created is - to my mind - quite reductionist and reveals a common lack
>>>>>of
>>>>>understanding regarding the complexities of subject mappings.
>>>>>Numerous
>>>>>research projects (funded by international organisations like OCLC or
>>>>>even
>>>>>the JISC) have found that creating exact match mappings between
>>>>>*controlled*
>>>>>subject headings is extremely complex, time consuming and resource
>>>>>intensive.  So, if it remains difficult within a controlled
>>>>>environment to
>>>>>create mappings with experienced information professionals, how
>>>>>feasible
>>>>>would it be in an uncontrolled environment?
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>In the uncontrolled environment, social factors come into play. How do
>>>>we *really* discover academic resources today? By reputation, by
>>>>recommendation, by references in known works. I think the assumption
>>>>you're making is that the user is acting in a very isolated way, which
>>>>I don't think is the case. On the contrary, the folksonomy approach
>>>>assumes community. This may itself be a restriction upon the domains
>>>>where it is an effective tool, and I think is one of the research
>>>>topics that would be of interest.
>>>>
>>>>I think the feedback mechanisms, and support processes that shape
>>>>folksonomies are also interesting; perhaps in their own way an
>>>>'internet time' model of the gradual shaping of knowledge
>>>>categorisation? Could tagging perhaps be an interesting method for the
>>>>generation of knowledge?
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>I agree with the sentiment that a taxonomy should not be 'kept'
>>>>>private and
>>>>>that 'a taxonomy should come from ourselves and our interactions with
>>>>>others', but current controlled vocabularies, classification schemes
>>>>>and
>>>>>taxonomies ARE largely derived from the people, albeit it in a more
>>>>>elaborate fashion.  Most prominent schemes are regularly revised and
>>>>>such
>>>>>revisions entail a detailed analysis of current knowledge and
>>>>>literature
>>>>>whereby appropriate terminology and concepts are harvested and
>>>>>inserted.  If
>>>>>one is fortunate enough to use a dynamic facility, such as OCLC's
>>>>>connexion,
>>>>>then one can expect revisions every minute of everyday.  These
>>>>>revisions
>>>>>will be internationally consistent, will use the best vocabulary to
>>>>>serve
>>>>>the most people, and will at least support resource discovery for the
>>>>>21st
>>>>>century.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, if you have been unable to recognise my position (!), folksonomies
>>>>>are
>>>>>interesting, but controlled vocabularies (in the strictest sense) will
>>>>>remain for many, many years!  I'm certainly confident of that, even if
>>>>>Steve
>>>>>Richardson isn't! ;-)
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>I'm sure they're always going to be around too, the question is how
>>>>widely they'll be used compared with less rigorous approaches. But I'd
>>>>still like to thank Steve for making such a provocative statement :-)
>>>>
>>>>- Scott
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>George
>>>>>----------------------------------------------
>>>>>George Macgregor,
>>>>>Centre for Digital Library Research (CDLR),
>>>>>Department of Computer & Information Sciences,
>>>>>University of Strathclyde, Livingstone Tower,
>>>>>26 Richmond Street, Glasgow, UK, G1 1XH
>>>>>tel: +44 (0)141 548 4753
>>>>>web: http://cdlr.strath.ac.uk/
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>-- 
>>*******************************************
>>Ms. Sarah Currier
>>Librarian, Stòr Cùram Project
>>"A Storehouse of Learning Resources for Social Care"
>>Dept. of Social Work, University of Strathclyde
>>c/o: Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde
>>Graham Hills Building, 50 George Street
>>Glasgow G1 1QE, Scotland, United Kingdom
>>Web: http://www.storcuram.ac.uk/
>>Tel.: +44 (0)141 548 4573   Fax: +44 (0)141 553 2053
>>E-mail: [log in to unmask]   Mob.: +44 (0)7980 855 801
>>Stòr Cùram is Gaelic for Storehouse of Care
>>******************************************* 
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>Vashti Zarach,
>CETIS Enterprise SIG Coordinator,
>University of Wales Bangor.
>
>
>--
>This mail sent through http://webmail.bangor.ac.uk
>
>  
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
October 2022
August 2022
July 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
January 2022
November 2021
September 2021
May 2021
April 2021
February 2021
November 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
March 2020
February 2020
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
April 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
September 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager