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

[Antoon Goderis]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Pettifer [mailto:address@hidden 
> Sent: 23 March 2007 12:07
> To: June Finch
> Cc: Antoon Goderis; address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Myexperiment-discuss] myExperiment "look and 
> feel" a Flickr mockup(workflow)
> 
> 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.

I agree there's a lot of overlap..

I'd say your points about mediation apply to ontology-based annotation, too,
once you're in a multi-curator environment and allow editing of the
ontology. Does anyone know of a paper describing transition paths between
tagging and formal annotation (both directions!) or hybrid approaches?

Antoon