first example of tagging...?

19 Dec 2006 - 12:02pm
7 years ago
27 replies
1486 reads
Leisa Reichelt
2006

a colleague asked me today - what was the first example of tagging?

I came back with the (I think too) obvious examples - Technorati,
De.licio.us, Flickr....

what would you say?

________________________
Leisa Reichelt
User Experience Consultant

leisa.reichelt at gmail.com
www.disambiguity.com

Comments

19 Dec 2006 - 12:18pm
Dan Saffer
2003

On Dec 19, 2006, at 9:02 AM, Leisa Reichelt wrote:

> a colleague asked me today - what was the first example of tagging?
>

According to Wikipedia, it was the World Wide Web Consortium's
Annotea project in 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomy

Dan

19 Dec 2006 - 1:20pm
Dave Malouf
2005

Dan Saffer wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2006, at 9:02 AM, Leisa Reichelt wrote:
>
>> a colleague asked me today - what was the first example of tagging?
>>
>
> According to Wikipedia, it was the World Wide Web Consortium's
> Annotea project in 2002.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomy

I'm not sure who was the first per se, but "tagging" as a concept not as
labelled as such has been around for quite some time.

It is called an uncontrolled vocabulary across multiple users.

We accommodated this in the Documentum content management system for quite
some time before anyone ever heard of del.icio.us.

So I think we need to re-ask the question a bit.

What is the point of the question? Is it to understand original intent? To
track its innovative course?

-- dave

--
David Malouf
dave at ixda.org
http://ixda.org/

19 Dec 2006 - 4:27pm
Leisa Reichelt
2006

yes, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to pull me up
on this question! I was wondering the same thing re: uncontrolled
vocab = tagging.

this time, the question is to do with tracking the innovative course
of tagging.

do we think that multiple users are critical to the concept of
tagging? I was thinking not.

> I'm not sure who was the first per se, but "tagging" as a concept not as
> labelled as such has been around for quite some time.
>
> It is called an uncontrolled vocabulary across multiple users.
>
> We accommodated this in the Documentum content management system for quite
> some time before anyone ever heard of del.icio.us.
>
> So I think we need to re-ask the question a bit.
>
> What is the point of the question? Is it to understand original intent? To
> track its innovative course?

________________________
Leisa Reichelt
User Experience Consultant

leisa.reichelt at gmail.com
www.disambiguity.com

19 Dec 2006 - 5:15pm
Thomas Vander Wal
2004

There was a DOS program in the late 80s or early 90s that used tags
for filing by using remaining 256 characters used for file attributes.
I have been trying to find the name of the program (a co-worker used
it for retrieval rather than directories).

Bitzi was an open tagging system that started in 2000 and focussed on
music (eventually anything with a web address). It was what Cory
Doctorow called "metacrap". It lacked any identity for who added the
tag and it was nearly impossible to sort out why a tag term was
applied in many cases. Anybody with a Bitzi account could tag and it
was all shared. The service is still around as an open music meta
data repository.

You could also say that the unstructured keywords in Compuserve
libraries (forum meta data was added in 1992 or 1994) were tags.
Normally the person adding the file to the system library would add
the terms or tags (some of the sysop manuals called them tags). The
sysop (system operator) would then edit the tags (255 characters to
work with) to normalize the terms. If you were a sysop (I was a paid
sysop for for a private forum as well as a back-up volunteer sysop in
a writing forum) you learned very quickly that changing the terms/tags
applied by the contributor would break their means of refinding and
retrieving what they submitted.

I worked with some anthropologists who called their digital meta data
attributes for an item a tag in their inventory system they built for
a client I worked for in 1989. The collection of meta data for the
object was that object's tag. The terminology came from the physical
tags they used on field objects collected. They had built a similar
system (or variation) for an ad agency/multi media company in San
Francisco around the same time. This was DOS based.

Del.icio.us was the first system that I saw that added identity to the
tag and the object. This was a major breakthrough. It allowed for
the ability to follow an identity that applied a tag to an object. If
you like what one person called "bebopjazz" you could follow their
"bebopjazz" tag and ignore other "bebopjazz" tags from identities that
did not fit your understanding. Most tagging systems and social
bookmarking systems (including Amazon's tagging system) use this 3D
tagging. Flickr does not and falls into similar problems as Bitzi at
times.

All the best,
Thomas

On 12/19/06, Leisa Reichelt <leisa.reichelt at gmail.com> wrote:
> a colleague asked me today - what was the first example of tagging?
>
> I came back with the (I think too) obvious examples - Technorati,
> De.licio.us, Flickr....
>
> what would you say?
>
> ________________________
> Leisa Reichelt
> User Experience Consultant
>
> leisa.reichelt at gmail.com
> www.disambiguity.com
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

20 Dec 2006 - 3:09pm
Thomas Vander Wal
2004

I have been wondering if Magellan was the tool. I remembered my
co-worker using Magellan as a hierarchy view of files and directories
many years before Windows. There was a flat file system in OS2 or was
a program for OS2, as well.

All the best,
Thomas

On 12/20/06, Jared M. Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 19, 2006, at 5:15 PM, Thomas Vander Wal wrote:
>
> > There was a DOS program in the late 80s or early 90s that used tags
> > for filing by using remaining 256 characters used for file attributes.
> > I have been trying to find the name of the program (a co-worker used
> > it for retrieval rather than directories).
>
> Both Lotus Agenda (a Personal Information Manager) and Lotus Magellen
> (a predecessor to Google Desktop Search) had tagging components to
> them, circa 1987.
>
> Jared
>
>

20 Dec 2006 - 3:58pm
Dave Malouf
2005

is "flat" a required part of the definition of tagging?
Can tags or categories be hierarchical?

Where is the line between tag and taxonomy when you are speaking about
individual use? I understand the difference between controlled and
uncontrolled vocabularies that can exist, but can a tagging system exist
within a controlled vocabulary? Can Tags be derived from the content
instead of manually done?

To me the essence of what people are interested in with tagging are ...
1. uncontrolled
2. social
a. shared
b. multi-users can tag a single object and combine their efforts
c. clouds for learning tags and seeing their cumulative effect
3. use-scenarios
a. is it just for browsing/finding or is there more?
b. creating community: I.e. I tag my speaking engagements with "IxDA"
of course this could be another angle of social.

I'm sure there is more here, but my point really is that "tagging" as a
concept seems pretty meaningless compared to the ways that it has been
used most recently, AND that new technologies have taken away pain-points
that have prevented tagging from happening.

AJAX allowing you to tag without having to GO someplace new to create the
tag (inline dialog creation);Without it being this easy, I won't bother.

-- dave

-- dave

Thomas Vander Wal wrote:
> I have been wondering if Magellan was the tool. I remembered my
> co-worker using Magellan as a hierarchy view of files and directories
> many years before Windows. There was a flat file system in OS2 or was
> a program for OS2, as well.
>
> All the best,
> Thomas
>
> On 12/20/06, Jared M. Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 19, 2006, at 5:15 PM, Thomas Vander Wal wrote:
>>
>> > There was a DOS program in the late 80s or early 90s that used tags
>> > for filing by using remaining 256 characters used for file attributes.
>> > I have been trying to find the name of the program (a co-worker used
>> > it for retrieval rather than directories).
>>
>> Both Lotus Agenda (a Personal Information Manager) and Lotus Magellen
>> (a predecessor to Google Desktop Search) had tagging components to
>> them, circa 1987.
>>
>> Jared
>>
>>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

--
--
David Malouf
dave at ixda.org
http://ixda.org/

19 Jan 2007 - 12:14am
Alan Cooper
2004

Leisa, et al,

I wrote extensively about "Attribute Based Retrieval" in both of my
books, the first one published in 1995. Retrieving information based on
assigned attributes (tags) rather than by contents, location, or name,
has been needed for a long time. I wrote an ABR program for myself in C
for MSDOS way back in the mid-80s.

In various guises, the concept has been around for a long time.
Getting business people to invest in it has been problematic.

Thanx,
Alan

__________
Cooper | design for a digital world
Alan Cooper
alan at cooper.com | www.cooper.com
__________
"What's another word for thesaurus?" - Steven Wright

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
Leisa Reichelt
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 9:03 AM
To: discuss at ixda.org
Subject: [IxDA Discuss] first example of tagging...?

a colleague asked me today - what was the first example of tagging?

I came back with the (I think too) obvious examples - Technorati,
De.licio.us, Flickr....

what would you say?

________________________
Leisa Reichelt
User Experience Consultant

leisa.reichelt at gmail.com
www.disambiguity.com
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

19 Jan 2007 - 10:46am
Jim Kauffman
2004

> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-
> bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Alan Cooper
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 12:15 AM
> To: discuss at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] first example of tagging...?
>
> In various guises, the concept has been around for a long time.
> Getting business people to invest in it has been problematic.
The exception is businesses that rely on image-based document retrieval, such
as insurance companies. Tagging is known as "indexing" in that industry, but
the concept is the same: attaching words and numbers to the scanned documents
so they can be easily searched for. That implementation is as old as document
scanning itself.

Jim K.

19 Jan 2007 - 10:52am
Ari
2006

agreed. asset management systems have had this or similar capabilities for
years, if not decades and database systems such as dBase and later RDBMS
systems even longer.

in fact, anything that is data(base)-driven supports tagging since queries
can be matched on exact phrases, partial matches or items that are
classified or categorized in some way.

On 1/19/07, Jim Kauffman <jkauff at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-
> > bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Alan Cooper
> > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 12:15 AM
> > To: discuss at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> > Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] first example of tagging...?
> >
> > In various guises, the concept has been around for a long time.
> > Getting business people to invest in it has been problematic.
> The exception is businesses that rely on image-based document retrieval,
> such
> as insurance companies. Tagging is known as "indexing" in that industry,
> but
> the concept is the same: attaching words and numbers to the scanned
> documents
> so they can be easily searched for. That implementation is as old as
> document
> scanning itself.
>
> Jim K.
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flyingyogi.com

19 Jan 2007 - 10:55am
Dave Malouf
2005

Jim aren't those document scanning systems primarily using "controlled"
vocabularies for their indexes. Insurance companies are infamous control
freaks, no?

If I'm wrong, then yes, indexing sounds like tagging.
If I'm write, I would suggest that indexing is not tagging b/c one of the
defining features of tagging as the term is being used recently is that it
is about individual contribution/creation.

-- dave

Jim Kauffman wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-
>> bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Alan Cooper
>> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 12:15 AM
>> To: discuss at lists.interactiondesigners.com
>> Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] first example of tagging...?
>>
>> In various guises, the concept has been around for a long time.
>> Getting business people to invest in it has been problematic.
> The exception is businesses that rely on image-based document retrieval,
> such
> as insurance companies. Tagging is known as "indexing" in that industry,
> but
> the concept is the same: attaching words and numbers to the scanned
> documents
> so they can be easily searched for. That implementation is as old as
> document
> scanning itself.
>
> Jim K.
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

--
--
David Malouf
dave at ixda.org
http://ixda.org/

19 Jan 2007 - 11:02am
Ari
2006

yes but tagging is merely a form of classification and categorization.

the main difference between tagging and more traditional data forms is that
for the most part, tagging is user-defined whereas a database for tracking
assets or criminal records would have documented and rigid standards for how
to classify and organize data to maintain the integrity of the data set as
well as to facilitate queries, etc.

On 1/19/07, David Malouf <dave at ixda.org> wrote:
>
> Jim aren't those document scanning systems primarily using "controlled"
> vocabularies for their indexes. Insurance companies are infamous control
> freaks, no?
>
> If I'm wrong, then yes, indexing sounds like tagging.
> If I'm write, I would suggest that indexing is not tagging b/c one of the
> defining features of tagging as the term is being used recently is that it
> is about individual contribution/creation.
>
> -- dave
>
>
> Jim Kauffman wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-
> >> bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Alan Cooper
> >> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 12:15 AM
> >> To: discuss at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> >> Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] first example of tagging...?
> >>
> >> In various guises, the concept has been around for a long time.
> >> Getting business people to invest in it has been problematic.
> > The exception is businesses that rely on image-based document retrieval,
> > such
> > as insurance companies. Tagging is known as "indexing" in that industry,
> > but
> > the concept is the same: attaching words and numbers to the scanned
> > documents
> > so they can be easily searched for. That implementation is as old as
> > document
> > scanning itself.
> >
> > Jim K.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> > List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> > (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> > Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> > Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> > Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> > Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
> >
>
>
> --
> --
> David Malouf
> dave at ixda.org
> http://ixda.org/
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flyingyogi.com

19 Jan 2007 - 11:12am
Dan Saffer
2003

On Jan 19, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Ari Feldman wrote:

> yes but tagging is merely a form of classification and categorization.

Could one say that labeling folders is tagging? At its heart, tagging
is just manually attaching a piece of metadata to something, which is
what labeling a folder does: attaches a piece of metadata (the folder
name) to the items "contained within" it.

Just curious...

Dan

19 Jan 2007 - 11:24am
Josh Seiden
2003

> Could one say that labeling folders is tagging?

I guess one could. But if the point of tagging is to bypass a
location-based retrieval system, then labeling folders doesn't
really do that. It is more akin to putting scaffolding on the
location-based system.

JS

19 Jan 2007 - 11:24am
.pauric
2006

I agree with your thinking David "I would suggest that indexing is not
tagging b/c one of the defining features of tagging as the term is being
used recently is that it
is about individual contribution/creation."

However I'm stuck on where would you draw the line between, say, I librarian
indexing within a fixed set of categories/genres and a flickr user tagging
within the range of the English vocabulary?

19 Jan 2007 - 11:28am
.pauric
2006

Dan: "Could one say that labeling folders is tagging?"

I dont think you can in this example. To me, one of the premises of tagging
is cross reference. I have not work on a filesystem that allows me to apply
multiple, independent, names to one folder.

19 Jan 2007 - 11:42am
dcooney at umich.edu
2006

I agree with pauric that labeling folders isn't quite tagging, but
certainly in the same arena.

Different domains use the term "tagging" differently. To mention a
few, in text mining a person might mention tagging the records, and
this usually refers to using a controlled vocabulary. Similarly in
manual or automated indexing, tagging usually means adding metadata to
a record (piece of content) using a controlled vocabulary.

I've presumed that the more recent "Web 2.0" use of the term tagging
refers to NOT using a controlled vocabulary, but instead using a
user-defined ad hoc vocabulary to add metadata to a record of some sort.

So, I think the term means different things when used in different contexts.

Dan Cooney

Quoting pauric <radiorental at gmail.com>:

> Dan: "Could one say that labeling folders is tagging?"
>
> I dont think you can in this example. To me, one of the premises of tagging
> is cross reference. I have not work on a filesystem that allows me to apply
> multiple, independent, names to one folder.
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>
>
>

19 Jan 2007 - 1:49pm
Thomas Vander Wal
2004

I don't thinks folders apply as it is labeling a folder and the folder
is a single instance system. Tagging is a multi-place system, which
is more open. Labels are often part of a predefined system that are
applied to groups of things in a top-down system.

Tagging, when looking at it from a bottom up system (even from the
meta data on tags in from archeology digs) have a bottom-up structure
to it that is in whole or part not-predefined (archeology tags often
have open attribute areas).

All the best,
Thomas

On 1/19/07, Dan Saffer <dan at odannyboy.com> wrote:

> Could one say that labeling folders is tagging? At its heart, tagging
> is just manually attaching a piece of metadata to something, which is
> what labeling a folder does: attaches a piece of metadata (the folder
> name) to the items "contained within" it.

19 Jan 2007 - 2:13pm
.pauric
2006

"I don't thinks folders apply as it is labeling a folder and the folder is a
single instance system."

I'm not sure this is always true. In UNIX there are symbolic links, also,
within windows explorer you can have the same folder in the My Documents,
Shared documents and elsewhere.

And in general terms I'm still stuck at this defined/undefined dvide between
indexing and tagging.

Using a label outside of an index system breaks the index. Using a word
outside the users language breaks tagging (tagging a photo with gibberish
'ajsdnfg').

Tagging just happens to use a superset from which all forms of indexing are
based, but does that make it different?

19 Jan 2007 - 2:37pm
Jim Kauffman
2004

> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-
> bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of David Malouf
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 10:55 AM
> To: discuss at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] first example of tagging...?
>
> Jim aren't those document scanning systems primarily using "controlled"
> vocabularies for their indexes. Insurance companies are infamous control
> freaks, no?
>
> If I'm wrong, then yes, indexing sounds like tagging.
> If I'm write, I would suggest that indexing is not tagging b/c one of the
> defining features of tagging as the term is being used recently is that it
> is about individual contribution/creation.

I agree that unstructured tagging is an innovation, made possible by the huge
numbers of people using the Internet. Perhaps this is the first stage of the
"Semantic Web" Tim Berners-Lee speaks of, where the most commonly-accepted
meaning of the metadata bubbles up from the bottom. If I have a photo of a box
of tissues and tag it "Fred", it's unlikely anyone else will. If I tag it as
"Kleenex", we may well discover that the brand name Kleenex is preferred over
more generic terms like "tissue" by a ratio of 2 to 1.
I can envision a day in the future where "tag bombing" becomes as ubiquitous
as "Google bombing" is today.

Jim K.

19 Jan 2007 - 3:05pm
Thomas Vander Wal
2004

Pauric --

The difference is around a controlled system that is often poorly
emergent (library system) and free open systems that can be seen as
messy. The two are very complimentary and and fill-in for each
other's faults.

The library system tries to place objects into a predefined system for
others to hopefully find them. The library system is not inclusive
and exhaustive, there are "right" ways to categorize items.

The tagging systems are applied to objects on an individual basis by
an individual. Tags capture their understanding of the object as it
relates to them and their view of things (language, taste, education,
socialization, etc.) and to them each tag is correct or right.

ATB,
Thomas

On 1/19/07, pauric <radiorental at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with your thinking David "I would suggest that indexing is not
> tagging b/c one of the defining features of tagging as the term is being
> used recently is that it
> is about individual contribution/creation."
>
> However I'm stuck on where would you draw the line between, say, I librarian
> indexing within a fixed set of categories/genres and a flickr user tagging
> within the range of the English vocabulary?

19 Jan 2007 - 4:15pm
Esteban Barahona
2006

why not use inverse/tagging?

ie:

I want to search for files that are not: technology, art, design, culture...
via spotlight in Mac OS ]]

And delete them!!

2007/1/19, Joshua Seiden <joshseiden en gmail.com>:
>
> > Could one say that labeling folders is tagging?
>
> I guess one could. But if the point of tagging is to bypass a
> location-based retrieval system, then labeling folders doesn't
> really do that. It is more akin to putting scaffolding on the
> location-based system.
>
> JS
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss en ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists en ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

--
http://www.zensui.org

19 Jan 2007 - 4:35pm
Mark Bardsley
2006

I think that calling symbolic links and such, a tagging system is stretching
the definition too much. Tagging an item is supposed to attribute metadata
to said item. Tags are supposed to help construct item "aboutness" (AKA
subject). If you have a folder with a bunch of symbolic links to it those
links do not necessarily help define what the item is about. In fact, often
symbolic links have the exact same name as the item they link to. That's not
useful in constructing what the item is about. Unless of course someone goes
about constructing a tagging system using symbolic links which is flat our
weird and would require additional overhead to create a way to aggregate and
search the symbolic links, etc.

I got a degree in library and information science so I have a hard time
responding to the question about the difference between tagging and indexing
and how using terms in or outside of either system breaks or makes it. The
reason is, there is too much to be said (and too much other work to do).

I will at least put forth an effort to provide links to existing content
that help to define the topics and their differences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_vocabulary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesaurus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_%28metadata%29
http://many.corante.com/archives/2005/01/07/folksonomies_controlled_vocabula
ries.php

It should be noted that there are many ways to classify items. Most attempt
to be exhaustive but they have different means of achieving that. Tagging is
of course a method whose inter-workings are open to unwashed masses.
Personally I love them as they are very useful for some situations -
hopefully they will stay that way and not become subject to nefarious
manipulation. I would be willing to bet though that if they do, intelligent
people will be able to stay a step ahead of the bad guys. The other two
systems that come to mind are enumerative and synthetic thesauri:

http://www.cse.ogi.edu/class/cse580ir/handouts/24%20October/Digital%20Librar
ies/sld017.htm

- Mark

-----Original Message-----

"I don't thinks folders apply as it is labeling a folder and the folder is a
single instance system."

I'm not sure this is always true. In UNIX there are symbolic links, also,
within windows explorer you can have the same folder in the My Documents,
Shared documents and elsewhere.

And in general terms I'm still stuck at this defined/undefined dvide between
indexing and tagging.

Using a label outside of an index system breaks the index. Using a word
outside the users language breaks tagging (tagging a photo with gibberish
'ajsdnfg').

Tagging just happens to use a superset from which all forms of indexing are
based, but does that make it different?
________________________________________________________________

19 Jan 2007 - 6:58pm
.pauric
2006

Sorry to have sent you off on a mission to explain why symbolic links
are not an example of tagging - I totally agree (o;

I was responding to a post that said "I don't thinks folders apply as
it is labeling a folder and the folder is a single instance system."
Which is not always the case, therefore not the best example to help
define was it or is not an example of tagging.

As you rightly point out this isnt a simple matter... to help things
along I've found an example of tagging that predates any of the above
citations
http://www.graffiti.org/trains/outman15_nytrain.jpg

20 Jan 2007 - 8:43am
Esteban Barahona
2006

about metadata... is there a cross-platform standard for implementing
meta-data?

2007/1/19, Mark Bardsley <markb en luxworldwide.com>:
>
> I think that calling symbolic links and such, a tagging system is
> stretching
> the definition too much. Tagging an item is supposed to attribute metadata
> to said item. Tags are supposed to help construct item "aboutness" (AKA
> subject). If you have a folder with a bunch of symbolic links to it those
> links do not necessarily help define what the item is about. In fact,
> often
> symbolic links have the exact same name as the item they link to. That's
> not
> useful in constructing what the item is about. Unless of course someone
> goes
> about constructing a tagging system using symbolic links which is flat our
> weird and would require additional overhead to create a way to aggregate
> and
> search the symbolic links, etc.
>
> I got a degree in library and information science so I have a hard time
> responding to the question about the difference between tagging and
> indexing
> and how using terms in or outside of either system breaks or makes it. The
> reason is, there is too much to be said (and too much other work to do).
>
> I will at least put forth an effort to provide links to existing content
> that help to define the topics and their differences:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_vocabulary
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesaurus
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_%28metadata%29
>
> http://many.corante.com/archives/2005/01/07/folksonomies_controlled_vocabula
> ries.php
>
> It should be noted that there are many ways to classify items. Most
> attempt
> to be exhaustive but they have different means of achieving that. Tagging
> is
> of course a method whose inter-workings are open to unwashed masses.
> Personally I love them as they are very useful for some situations -
> hopefully they will stay that way and not become subject to nefarious
> manipulation. I would be willing to bet though that if they do,
> intelligent
> people will be able to stay a step ahead of the bad guys. The other two
> systems that come to mind are enumerative and synthetic thesauri:
>
>
> http://www.cse.ogi.edu/class/cse580ir/handouts/24%20October/Digital%20Librar
> ies/sld017.htm
>
> - Mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> "I don't thinks folders apply as it is labeling a folder and the folder is
> a
> single instance system."
>
> I'm not sure this is always true. In UNIX there are symbolic links, also,
> within windows explorer you can have the same folder in the My Documents,
> Shared documents and elsewhere.
>
> And in general terms I'm still stuck at this defined/undefined dvide
> between
> indexing and tagging.
>
> Using a label outside of an index system breaks the index. Using a word
> outside the users language breaks tagging (tagging a photo with gibberish
> 'ajsdnfg').
>
> Tagging just happens to use a superset from which all forms of indexing
> are
> based, but does that make it different?
> ________________________________________________________________
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss en ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists en ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

--
http://www.zensui.org

21 Jan 2007 - 2:53pm
Bruce Esrig
2006

> http://www.graffiti.org/trains/outman15_nytrain.jpg

As a technical note from the history of computing ... surely, some
enthusiast will correct me, but ... If you don't require the Internet or
the Web to have been present, many innovations in computing were first
encountered in the early days of LISP.

McCarthy mentions a tagging method, the construction of property lists in
LISP, and traces it to the very first assembly language implementation
(1959 or a few months earlier?). See
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/lisp/node4.html and the
preceding page.

The "atom" in LISP was a named node. Relationships between atoms were
constructed by building lists. LISP *programs* were written as lists of
lists of ... atoms. From the start, both programs and the LISP interpreter
would have manipulated atoms and lists as data.

A property (if its meaning was unchanged by 1985 or so) was an identifier
associated with an atom. You could attach a property to an atom in order to
flag it as having that property. A "property list", I believe, would have
been the list of all properties attached to a particular atom. A property
could have a value also, but just having a property was sometimes significant.

To draw the analogy, you have to realize how seriously people took atoms.
They were the fundamental building blocks of the data being represented and
manipulated by the system. A property without a value is equivalent to a
tag. Just as in tag systems today, where people find some tags more useful
than others, having a property was only useful if a program checked for it.
You might build a pool of atoms, and then pull out those with a particular
property.

Very similar, don't you agree?

Best wishes,

Bruce Esrig

At 06:58 PM 1/19/2007, pauric wrote:
>Sorry to have sent you off on a mission to explain why symbolic links
>are not an example of tagging - I totally agree (o;
>
>I was responding to a post that said "I don't thinks folders apply as
>it is labeling a folder and the folder is a single instance system."
>Which is not always the case, therefore not the best example to help
>define was it or is not an example of tagging.
>
>As you rightly point out this isnt a simple matter... to help things
>along I've found an example of tagging that predates any of the above
>citations
>http://www.graffiti.org/trains/outman15_nytrain.jpg
>________________________________________________________________
>Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
>List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
>(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
>Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
>Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
>Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
>Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

21 Jan 2007 - 11:17pm
.pauric
2006

Bruce said " A property without a value is equivalent to a tag. Just
as in tag systems today, where people find some tags more useful than
others, having a property was only useful if a program checked for it.
You might build a pool of atoms, and then pull out those with a
particular property."

That is interesting, I worked on a very similar design back in
2000ish. Here's a imagemapped wireframe (only the tabs are active).
VLANs came on the scheme in CLI form around 1995.
http://web.mac.com/pauric_ocallaghan/vlan2/port_modify.html

Clearly in both examples (atoms/vlans) the primary indexing method is
a predefined numbering scheme. But, also allowing user definitions
and searching on those defs. I still wouldn't call this tagging
though. Missing a collaborative bias in the results.

The link to the graffiti wasn't meant as a serious suggestion. I
personally feel its rare to find a HCI that isnt something we've
always been doing, or trying to do, just made a little easier with
automatrons. Same needs, different day. I'm sure examples of tagging
could be found throughout history, and nature.

On 1/21/07, Bruce Esrig <esrig-ia at esrig.com> wrote:
> > http://www.graffiti.org/trains/outman15_nytrain.jpg
>
> As a technical note from the history of computing ... surely, some
> enthusiast will correct me, but ... If you don't require the Internet or
> the Web to have been present, many innovations in computing were first
> encountered in the early days of LISP.
>
> McCarthy mentions a tagging method, the construction of property lists in
> LISP, and traces it to the very first assembly language implementation
> (1959 or a few months earlier?). See
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/lisp/node4.html and the
> preceding page.
>
> The "atom" in LISP was a named node. Relationships between atoms were
> constructed by building lists. LISP *programs* were written as lists of
> lists of ... atoms. From the start, both programs and the LISP interpreter
> would have manipulated atoms and lists as data.
>
> A property (if its meaning was unchanged by 1985 or so) was an identifier
> associated with an atom. You could attach a property to an atom in order to
> flag it as having that property. A "property list", I believe, would have
> been the list of all properties attached to a particular atom. A property
> could have a value also, but just having a property was sometimes significant.
>
> To draw the analogy, you have to realize how seriously people took atoms.
> They were the fundamental building blocks of the data being represented and
> manipulated by the system. A property without a value is equivalent to a
> tag. Just as in tag systems today, where people find some tags more useful
> than others, having a property was only useful if a program checked for it.
> You might build a pool of atoms, and then pull out those with a particular
> property.
>
> Very similar, don't you agree?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Bruce Esrig
>
> At 06:58 PM 1/19/2007, pauric wrote:
> >Sorry to have sent you off on a mission to explain why symbolic links
> >are not an example of tagging - I totally agree (o;
> >
> >I was responding to a post that said "I don't thinks folders apply as
> >it is labeling a folder and the folder is a single instance system."
> >Which is not always the case, therefore not the best example to help
> >define was it or is not an example of tagging.
> >
> >As you rightly point out this isnt a simple matter... to help things
> >along I've found an example of tagging that predates any of the above
> >citations
> >http://www.graffiti.org/trains/outman15_nytrain.jpg
> >________________________________________________________________
> >Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> >To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> >List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> >List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> >(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> >Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> >Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> >Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> >Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>
>
>

--
Job type: In house
Field: Embedded & physical interfaces. Web/cli

22 Jan 2007 - 9:55am
.pauric
2006

Bruce: " The collaboration that occurred was usually collaboration
among those building software, not collaboration among users. User
contribution of content is a comparatively recent development, and
user contribution of broadly-visible tags on broadly-visible content
is even newer."

I certainly agree. First off, I have no experience of AI. I feel
there is a lot of scope for AI to take advantage of user generated
categorisation, Intelligence in - intelligence out. Thats only a gut
instinct though.

I think on a more straight forward and practical level. In this
example, my proposal to the instructables team combined tagging with a
menu.
http://www.instructables.com/tag/keyword:paper/craft/

Search on a keyword (tag) and that keyword becomes sticky at the top
of the list with associated keywords below. Clicking on any of those
in turn adds the new choice to the sticky menu and filters the
associated list. The advantage here is you can back out of deadends
without having to start a new search

Its not hard to see the possibility of the system learning these paths
over time and refining straight forward search results based on these
popular paths - thats where the depths of my thinking ends I'm sad to
say.

On 1/22/07, Bruce Esrig <esrig-ia at esrig.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the reply, Pauric,
>
> > I still wouldn't call this tagging though. Missing a collaborative bias
> in the results.
>
> Yes, that's an interesting point. There were computer games (Advent, Zork)
> in the text-only era that required the user to guess what the commands were
> called and what they would do. But that was a one-sided match between what
> the programmer defined and what the user would eventually guess.
>
> The collaboration that occurred was usually collaboration among those
> building software, not collaboration among users. User contribution of
> content is a comparatively recent development, and user contribution of
> broadly-visible tags on broadly-visible content is even newer.
>
> I'm quite new to AI/HCI work, so I would like to ask ... do you agree? I'm
> thinking that the other examples on the thread wouldn't have gained
> anything like the adoption level that tagging has now.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Bruce
>
> At 11:17 PM 1/21/2007, you wrote:
> >Bruce said " A property without a value is equivalent to a tag. Just
> >as in tag systems today, where people find some tags more useful than
> >others, having a property was only useful if a program checked for it.
> >You might build a pool of atoms, and then pull out those with a
> >particular property."
> >
> >That is interesting, I worked on a very similar design back in
> >2000ish. Here's a imagemapped wireframe (only the tabs are active).
> >VLANs came on the scheme in CLI form around 1995.
> >http://web.mac.com/pauric_ocallaghan/vlan2/port_modify.html
> >
> >Clearly in both examples (atoms/vlans) the primary indexing method is
> >a predefined numbering scheme. But, also allowing user definitions
> >and searching on those defs. I still wouldn't call this tagging
> >though. Missing a collaborative bias in the results.
> >
> >The link to the graffiti wasn't meant as a serious suggestion. I
> >personally feel its rare to find a HCI that isnt something we've
> >always been doing, or trying to do, just made a little easier with
> >automatrons. Same needs, different day. I'm sure examples of tagging
> >could be found throughout history, and nature.
> >
> >On 1/21/07, Bruce Esrig <esrig-ia at esrig.com> wrote:
> > > > http://www.graffiti.org/trains/outman15_nytrain.jpg
> > >
> > > As a technical note from the history of computing ... surely, some
> > > enthusiast will correct me, but ... If you don't require the Internet or
> > > the Web to have been present, many innovations in computing were first
> > > encountered in the early days of LISP.
> > >
> > > McCarthy mentions a tagging method, the construction of property lists in
> > > LISP, and traces it to the very first assembly language implementation
> > > (1959 or a few months earlier?). See
> > > http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/lisp/node4.html and the
> > > preceding page.
> > >
> > > The "atom" in LISP was a named node. Relationships between atoms were
> > > constructed by building lists. LISP *programs* were written as lists of
> > > lists of ... atoms. From the start, both programs and the LISP interpreter
> > > would have manipulated atoms and lists as data.
> > >
> > > A property (if its meaning was unchanged by 1985 or so) was an identifier
> > > associated with an atom. You could attach a property to an atom in order to
> > > flag it as having that property. A "property list", I believe, would have
> > > been the list of all properties attached to a particular atom. A property
> > > could have a value also, but just having a property was sometimes
> > significant.
> > >
> > > To draw the analogy, you have to realize how seriously people took atoms.
> > > They were the fundamental building blocks of the data being represented and
> > > manipulated by the system. A property without a value is equivalent to a
> > > tag. Just as in tag systems today, where people find some tags more useful
> > > than others, having a property was only useful if a program checked for it.
> > > You might build a pool of atoms, and then pull out those with a particular
> > > property.
> > >
> > > Very similar, don't you agree?
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > >
> > > Bruce Esrig
> > >
> > > At 06:58 PM 1/19/2007, pauric wrote:
> > > >Sorry to have sent you off on a mission to explain why symbolic links
> > > >are not an example of tagging - I totally agree (o;
> > > >
> > > >I was responding to a post that said "I don't thinks folders apply as
> > > >it is labeling a folder and the folder is a single instance system."
> > > >Which is not always the case, therefore not the best example to help
> > > >define was it or is not an example of tagging.
> > > >
> > > >As you rightly point out this isnt a simple matter... to help things
> > > >along I've found an example of tagging that predates any of the above
> > > >citations
> > > >http://www.graffiti.org/trains/outman15_nytrain.jpg
> > > >________________________________________________________________
> > > >Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > > >To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > > >List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> > > >List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> > > >(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> > > >Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> > > >Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> > > >Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> > > >Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Job type: In house
> >Field: Embedded & physical interfaces. Web/cli
> >________________________________________________________________
> >Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> >To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> >List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> >List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> >(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> >Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> >Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> >Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> >Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>
>
>

--
Job type: In house
Field: Embedded & physical interfaces. Web/cli

Syndicate content Get the feed