Debbie Journal Presentation Jesse Weaver

Question is for the Presentation: Debbie Journal Presentation
Question is asked by: Jesse Weaver
The Question is: In section 5, the author feels the need to discuss the debate between the roles/similarities/etc. of folksonomies and ontologies. The author seems to say (more or less) that even though folksonomies are not as stable, formal, or sharable (i.e., limited sharing scope) as (traditional) ontologies, they benefit from one major advantage: "In particular, it is the first time that the barriers of providing knowledge have been lowered to such an extent that ordinary users are willing to provide metadata on web resources on a large scale." The approach in this paper shows that while "folksonomies are lightweight," "there is more semantics in folksonomies than meets the eye." What do you think about these claims? Are they accurate? Do they convince you that folksonomies are more useful than others may have initially assumed? While folksonomies may enable ordinary users to provide metadata on a large scale, it seems that the limited sharing scope may outweigh this fact. "Tagging systems at the moment represent islands of semantics that do not cross the boundaries of a single website." Can this be remedied? If not, how do folksonomies enable sharing of knowledge between agents as described in the introduction?

Question asked	In section 5, the author feels the need to … In section 5, the author feels the need to discuss the debate between the roles/similarities/etc. of folksonomies and ontologies. The author seems to say (more or less) that even though folksonomies are not as stable, formal, or sharable (i.e., limited sharing scope) as (traditional) ontologies, they benefit from one major advantage: "In particular, it is the first time that the barriers of providing knowledge have been lowered to such an extent that ordinary users are willing to provide metadata on web resources on a large scale." The approach in this paper shows that while "folksonomies are lightweight," "there is more semantics in folksonomies than meets the eye." What do you think about these claims? Are they accurate? Do they convince you that folksonomies are more useful than others may have initially assumed? While folksonomies may enable ordinary users to provide metadata on a large scale, it seems that the limited sharing scope may outweigh this fact. "Tagging systems at the moment represent islands of semantics that do not cross the boundaries of a single website." Can this be remedied? If not, how do folksonomies enable sharing of knowledge between agents as described in the introduction? n agents as described in the introduction?
Question asked by	Jesse Weaver +
Question for the Presentation	Debbie Journal Presentation +