W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > October 2005

Re: [PORT] new editor's working draft of SKOS Core Vocab Spec

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 18:27:48 +0100
Message-ID: <43495314.60904@w3.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: tiago.murakami@itau.com.br, "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org

Dan Brickley wrote:

> tiago.murakami@itau.com.br wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> There is a problem: Folksonomies are not a Controlled Vocabulary.
> My view is that they are controlled, just in a different way. On my 
> blog I control my keywords / categories, and arrange them in a basic 
> hierarchy. On flickr, I do the same with my "tags" that I assign to 
> photos. 

Actually I don't; the flickr tags are in a flat space, not explicitly 
hierarchical. But I still control them :)

> In both contexts I do this with some thought for how they relate to 
> the categories used by my friends and colleagues. And in both cases, 
> there are tools to expose these categories in RDF/SKOS. They're 
> certainly not controlled in the classic library sense, but they are 
> organised; sometimes carefully, sometimes carelessly. The weblog case 
> is more clearly "controlled vocabulary" than Flickr (based only on 
> current UI). This is because in my blog, when I post an article via 
> Wordpress, it offers me a list of my existing categories as the 
> options for categorising a post. On Flickr there is a free-text entry 
> field instead. But UIs can change easily: the practice in both systems 
> leads people to use the same category/keyword over again.
> Short version: folksonomies are "locally-controlled vocabularies", 
> perhaps?
> Dan
Received on Sunday, 9 October 2005 17:27:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:06 UTC