I think that the curators of dictionaries are becoming less relevant as the
internet is merging our culture at am alarmingly faster rate. Words like
"blog" would have taken a decade to make it into websters before the
internet. In less than a year, it went from an obscure
concatenation/contraction to being used by CEO's addressing the press.
Surely such a pattern of rapid adoption changes everything. (01)
There are also several new ways of visualizing this. Some of my favorites
are the tag gardens. James Governor of Redmonk (who I personally consider
to be a genius on this topic) has a concept of tag gardening which is highly
Here are some example of visualizing popular words with something called a
tag cloud (which itself is a relatively new term):
Tag clouds IMO are great ways to track usage of terms. What interests me is
the possibility of true semantics being inferred by watching the
interactions between the entities using the tags and the resource itself. (04)
When professional tag gardeners start using these, we will see some real
time growth in use of terminology. (05)
On 3/9/07 5:56 AM, "Deborah MacPherson" <debmacp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: (07)
> Do you see authorized editors as terminology curators then -
> selecting and establishing purer, less contraversial language able to
> run smoothly in overviews? If so, this is not the same work or
> documentation problem as battling out definitions on the front lines.
> Debbie MacPherson
> On 3/9/07, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Peter, JOhn
>> me too would disagree with such statement.
>> (that the distinction between personal and shared sematic space is not
>> I do however tend to read it more as an attempt to 'defend' an
>> original legitimate or commonly accepted
>> meaning from dilution, hybridization or entirely arbitrary usage which
>> in terms of information communication is rather dangerous
>> I do believe that original meanings of words are actually rather
>> sacred, and should be preserved. Also unfortunately 'standard'
>> languge' often flattens and deletes linguistic depth, so I am also
>> cautious about 'commonly accepted usage' (most of people are not that
>> literate and ignore etymological and semantic origins of words)
>> However I dont think this has anything to do with 'tagging' per se
>> Taggin is a semantic technique to create an 'association' between
>> terms and concepts.
>> It is highly legitimate to create as many semantic associations as
>> individuals see fit for personal use This does not affect nor change
>> the primitive meaning or accepted usage of a term.
>> If in the system we want to preserve canonical semantic associations,
>> for example
>> tag a word with its synonyms, or follow a prescribed taxonomy
>> we should use 'metadata', which is a kind of default tag assigned to
>> an object by an authorized editor.
>> A 'folkstonomy' type of tag is nothing but an additional layer of
>> metadata that is created
>> using unstructured, casual and subjective criteria. In fact I agree
>> that a lot of the tags per se are useful only to their creator, but I
>> am excited by the prospect of exploring the new dimensions created by
>> people, cause the extemporary chaotic semantic structures that emerge
>> contain some kind of knowledge, although we may not be able to use
>> that yet.
>> The burden of creating semantic 'order' when using tags is not placed
>> upon the creator of such association, who is not bound to follow any
>> logical rule, but upon the user of the tag. By navigating and
>> searching tag libraries, a user can simply explore sets of
>> associations as devised by other individuals, and possibly discover
>> new dimensions. The user can also narrow down the search or
>> application of a tag to the most conventional ones, or simply search
>> 'metadata'. and classify the word according to the taxonomy of choice.
>> (provided the system has been designed intelligently)
>> I dont think we should be afraid of new dimensions, provided we can
>> integrated them with
>> the more conventional and robust knowledge structuring techniques that
>> we are most familiar and comfortable with. Tagging can be done in
>> addition to conventional taxonomic classification.
>> Paola Di Maio
>> On 3/9/07, Peter F Brown <peter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Either I've misunderstood something, or I don't agree with you.
>>> You say in reply to my comment that what is important s to "make a
>>> distinction between the personal terminology space and the potentially
>>> shared" that "No such distinction is possible or useful."
>>> We all "tag" different discourses according to the community in which
>>> that discourse takes place (even if a community of one and the discourse
>>> is all in the head) - it is always context dependent - if I'm tagging
>>> stuff on a home server then my terminology is going to be based on the
>>> terms of discourse at home, including "private language"; I'm not going
>>> to use the same terminology in another environment - granted, it would
>>> be a lot easier if I used a "standard" terminology in all contexts - it
>>> saves me wasting time pecking around for terms instead of choosing from
>>> a pre-populated list; and, importantly, it provides a hook for
>>> collaboration - but this also kills organic development. The problem
>>> comes obviously when you attribute or imply different meaning for the
>>> same term in different contexts. So, the distinction IS useful.
>>> As to whether it is possible: surely that is the whole point of
>>> namespaces and similar techniques? The ISO Topic Maps standard uses
>>> Published Subject Indicators and Identifiers precisely to give users the
>>> possibility of stating "I mean this, whatever you or anyone else might
>>> mean by it.." It is designed precisely to scope and identify your
>>> terminology as well as providing a mechanism for giving common identity
>>> to semantically identical terms (via "topic merging") even if the actual
>>> word(s) used are different
>>> Hence my surprise and confusion of your summary dismissal that the
>>> distinctions are neither possible or useful.
>>> If I'm just being dorkish or have completely lost the plot because I
>>> didn't get enough sleep, I'm happy for you to put me straight offline
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F.
>>> Sent: 09 March 2007 00:45
>>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] (PLEASE!!...) tasteful tags...
>>> As I said, collaborative tagging is a typical example of
>>> collaborative naming and coining of new words and terms.
>>> In the book of Genesis, God gave that authority to Adam,
>>> but I'm sure that Eve and the kids had a lot to say about
>>> the choice of tags. And nothing has changed ever since.
>>> PFB> There's the rub: "for your own purposes" - is tagging
>>>> only for your own purpose (in which case you are right) or
>>>> to attempt to place the item being tagged in a concept space,
>>>> offered for sharing with others?
>>> The answer is yes to all of the above.
>>> PFB> Both are valid and what is important is to be able to
>>>> make a distinction between the personal terminology space
>>>> and the potentially shared.
>>> No such distinction is possible or useful.
>>> Some of the oldest roots in the IndoEuropean languages
>>> (which go back at least 7 millennia and probably more)
>>> are ma, pa, and sis -- babytalk syllables to which the
>>> suffix -ter was added to form mater, pater, and sister.
>>> I don't think that the baby who said "ma" when asking
>>> for the nipple intended to distinguish personal
>>> terminology from the potentially shared. But that
>>> primitive tag is still with us today.
>>> Any tag that is exposed for public view, either deliberately
>>> or inadvertently, becomes potentially shared. If other
>>> people find it useful, they adopt it, and it becomes part
>>> of the common vocabulary. If they don't, it is ignored.
>> "For as long as space and time endures
>> may I too abide to dispel misery and ignorance"
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sr. Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc. *
Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee *
Blog: http://technoracle.blogspot.com *
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)