fyi:
Clustering Delicious Tags
http://blog.pietrosperoni.it/2004/09/19/clustering-delicious-tags/
Making (hierarchical) mindmaps from them:
http://maps.pietrosperoni.it/delicious/makemap.html
On 10/28/05, David Huynh <dfhuynh_at_csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> I think providing a way to browse data hierarchically through
> user-assigned tags is the first item of business. This will look like a
> normal folder tree view.
>
> We can also provide tag completion not just at the time of tag
> assignment but also at the time of recalling items using tags. So, I can
> start typing a tag
>
> f
>
> and PB would complete
>
> f|
> irefox (39)
> riend (48)
>
> then I type i and hit tab
>
> firefox
>
> now when I type comma and space, I get other tags of things tagged as
> firefox
>
> firefox, |
> extension (18)
> flaws (6)
> hacks (13)
> javascript (2)
>
> David
>
>
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> > Brett Zamir wrote:
> >
> >> And how about a browseable hierarchy for tags as well, drawing from
> >> Princeton's WordNet perhaps (as one option for those who didn't want to
> >> start from scratch), in order to allow the user to come across
> >> results for
> >> similar concepts (e.g., while browsing for the tag "pizza", one could
> >> easily
> >> get to tags for "pasta", etc.). This hierarchy could be editable
> >> along the
> >> lines of (and even interfaceable with) Wikipedia's category structure.
> >
> >
> > I've been thinking long and hard about this. Probably even too much.
> > Clearly, the lack of relationships between tags is damaging,
> > especially when the tag space starts to grow.
> >
> > The problem, though, is that the relationships between those tags
> > should be folksonomized themselves, or we can run into trouble on a
> > globally distribute tag space.
> >
> > For example: suppose you tag something with "blog" and I tag the same
> > thing with "blogs". The edit distance between the label of our two
> > tags is small enough that I can run a levenshtein distance and present
> > you (or me or somebody else) with a potential relationship field
> >
> > blogs --- [edit text here ]---> blog
> >
> > then you can type "plural of" and it becomes another statement. At
> > that point, now we have a relationship between your tag and mine,
> > clearly typed as a relationship. Later somebody else might say
> >
> > "plural of" -(is a)-> "collapsable property"
> >
> > so that the system might know that when you find blogs or blog they
> > really mean the same thing. (in OWL terms, a "collapsable property"
> > does the same of an OWL equivalence but in the folksological space)
> >
> > The same emergence can be done by running such a distance against
> > wordnet, which would yield the ability to draw equivalences between
> > tags and words in wordnet... but again, those relationships are
> > *YOURS*, not global, then I can decide whether or not I agree or
> > disagree or even slightly want to differentiate myself from your
> > vision... defaulting to agreeing which is by far the most common case
> > in folksological spaces.
> >
> > I'm not inclined to introduce something that can't scale to an entire
> > world of people tagging... and not tagging things apple or blog, but
> > things like abortion or war or holocaust or religion or terrorism,
> > where meaning *and* relationships are highly dependent on the personal
> > context.
> >
> > And yes, there is an entire virgin research field on its own on doing
> > non-DL reasoning on a folksological space and I am very interested in
> > that research area myself, but tying tags to wordnet won't scale
> > socially, therefore has very little appeal to me even if immediately
> > would be useful.
> >
> > That said, this is only my personal opinion and I don't speak for the
> > entire group... and remember, this is an open source project so
> > patches are always welcome :-)
> >
>
>
--
http://dannyayers.com
Received on Fri Oct 28 2005 - 22:38:12 EDT