Re: [Myexperiment-discuss] myExperiment "look and feel" a Flickr mockup(workflow)

[Steve Pettifer]

I would say that tagging and 'annotating' are slightly different  
things; tagging (as understood in the web2.0 stylie) is a quite  
informal kind of thing, so it should be possible to tag anything with  
anything you like 'stevesFavourites', for example, without worrying  
too much whether they are 'good' or 'appropriate' tags.  'Annotating'  
is a more formal and considered thing. I guess there is quite a lot  
of overlap between the two activities, but I think that they are also  
in other ways quite distinct. Which tags actually turn out to be  
'useful' should then be mediated by a) the interface, and b) the  
searching and ranking algorithms (i.e. the input interface should  
help you by suggesting tags that appear to be similar / the same as  
yours, and the output interface (guided by the search / correlation  
algorithms) should give an idea of the 'quality',  frequency,  
importance etc of tags). So tagging needs to be a lightweight  
activity, with usefulness as an emergent property.

Just my 2p's worth.

Steve





On 23 Mar 2007, at 11:50, June Finch wrote:

> Antoon Goderis wrote:
> > > The number of tags you can attach to a workflow just gets silly,  
> > > and tagging just doesn't work sensibly.
> >
> > Check out the attached tagged workflows from Franck. We need a lot  
> > of real
> > estate to show all that info in one go - so some kind of zoom or  
> > tooltip
> > functionality would be v handy
> >
> > Antoon
>
> In the gold standard work, these workflows are specifically  
> annotated "as services" - with a description,inputs and outputs and  
> expanded pointers to the included service descriptions; in line  
> with the way the services themselves are described.  ... and wow,  
> we have loads of stuff.
>
> If we then add all the other data that is associated with the  
> experimental/organisational/provenance aspects of the workflow  
> (rather than the technical sum of it's parts) it gets very very  
> massive as Duncan and Antoon have said.
>
> We need to think about presenting different views of the workflow  
> to support the different reasons people view them - and not fall  
> into the trap of a massively complex one size fits all view with an  
> intimidating amount of confiiguration.
> Longer term, we may also need to allow the user to configure a view  
> of their workflow suitable for publication of paper purposes. - I  
> could imagine institutional looks&feels and a whole slew of logos  
> being necessary in some cases :-)
>
> June.
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > ---
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Myexperiment-discuss mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/myexperiment-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Myexperiment-discuss mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/myexperiment-discuss