Upload
noreen-whysel
View
132
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
How would an art museum user search for a Jackson Pollock painting with no art history knowledge? In a library, the user needs to have ‘entry points’ such as title and author, to find a book. Until recently, the art museum user needed to have similar identifying information for a particular work of art. But what if you can't remember an artist's name? A piece of artwork has no cover or copyright page where identifying information is recorded. Folksonomies help art museums to identify items in their collections for access by their users. Taxonomies are hierarchical systems of organization that classify items into further and further defined groupings through a series of parent-child relationships. Art museums use controlled vocabularies to organize their collections into taxonomies; this structure then informs the way their online galleries are organized. A top-down structure is helpful to museum staff, who need strict control over their holdings, but makes it difficult for users to explore online collections. An online collection's search interface helps art enthusiasts who wish to explore online art collections, but may be unable to effectively utilize taxonomic keywords due to a lack of art historical expertise or knowledge of art terminology. Adding a folksonomy feature to the search interface improves findability for the lay user. So if all the user can remember about a work of art is "splatter paint" he will still find the Jackson Pollack he was looking for.
Citation preview
Folksonomies in Museums
LIS 653 Knowledge OrganizationKathleen Dowling
Dana HartNoreen Whysel
Folksonomies in Museums
IntroductionKathleen Dowling
Entry Points
No title
No author
No knowledge of Art History
How Do Users Find This Item?
Campbell's Soup Cans
Andy Warhol
How Do Users Find This Item?
melting landscape
watch
branch
abstract
watch face
darkness
melting watch
Impact of Social Tagging…
…Improving Online Search
Folksonomies in Museums
What is a Folksonomy?Noreen Whysel
Folksonomy The user-created bottom-up
categorical structure development with an emergent thesaurus.
The result of personal free tagging of information and objects (anything with a URL) for one's own retrieval.
The tagging is done in a social environment (usually shared and open to others).
Folksonomy is created from the act of tagging by the person consuming the information.
Source: http://vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html, Vander Wal, Thomas (June 24, 2004). Message posted to http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/aifia-members
Thomas Vander WalPrincipal and Senior Consultant, InfoCloud Solutions
Founder, Information Architecture Institute
Folksonomy “Mass Amateurization of Web Publishing”
“We have gone past a critical mass of connectivity between people that has introduced a new revolutionary ability to communicate, collaborate and share goods online.
“To respond to these increased informational and exchange needs, new communication models are emerging and producing an incredible amount of distributed information that information management professionals, information architects, librarians and knowledge workers at large need to link, aggregate, and organize in order to extract knowledge.
“The issue is whether the traditional organizational schemes used so far are suitable to address the classification needs of fast-proliferating, new information sources or if, to achieve this goal, better aggregation and concept matching tools are required.
“Folksonomies attempt to provide a solution to this issue, by introducing an innovative distributed approach based on social classification.”
-Emanuele Quintarelli, Folksonomies: power to the people http://www.iskoi.org/doc/folksonomies.htm
Folksonomy vs TaxonomyFolksonomy Unstructured Personal Free and open Social
Taxonomy Structured Hierarchical Controlled Defines relationships
folks·on·o·my [fohk-son-uh-mee] noun,plural folks·on·o·mies.noun Computers.a classification system derived from user-generated electronic tags or keywords that annotate and describe online content.
tax·on·o·my [tak-son-uh-mee]noun, plural tax·on·o·mies.1. the science or technique of classification.2. a classification into ordered categories.3. Biology. the science dealing with the description, identification, naming, and classification of organisms.
Source: Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/
Tagging Identify/Label
Hello my name is… Suitcase tag Price tag
Describe What color? How big? Who made it? What does it cost?
Tagging on the Web Categorize
Curator Top-Down
Category Directory Path SKU
Control Authority Files Metadata Systems Controlled Vocabulary Thesaurus Taxonomy Ontology
Find User Bottom-Up
Keyword Search term Facet
Re-find Folksonomy Social Bookmarking Hashtag
Private Use vs. Public GoodPrivate Tag Personal Recall
Bookmarks (Deli.cio.us) Twitter hashtags Search terms Language of the User
Public Tag Group Recall
Blog categories Formalized hashtags Facets Language of the curator
Source: Weinberger, David (2007). Everything is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder. New York, NY: Henry Holt & Company.
Social Tagging: Del.icio.us
Social Tagging: Flickr
Social Tagging at Museums What is the best way for museum website users
to discover works online?
What language does the average website user use to describe an image compared to language used by an art curator?
Before we get to this, Dana will present on traditional taxonomies used by museums.
Folksonomies in Museums
Museum TaxonomiesDana Hart
How Do Art Museums Create Taxonomies? Curators determine to which curatorial
department an object belongs.
The department further classifies the object with appropriate descriptors.
These descriptive terms are usually taken from a controlled vocabulary; understanding the vocabulary is the key to understanding the taxonomy.
Authority Controls Controlled vocabularies are selected words or
phrases used to tag works.
Getty is an established source of authority control for language.
ICONCLASS is a specialized taxonomy of art subjects.
Example: British Museum
If there is no authority control that fits a museum’s needs, they can create their own descriptors.
The British Museum created their own taxonomy that has three “top terms”: organic, inorganic, and man-made.
Taxonomies: A Hierarchy
Organic Inorganic Processed Material
Man-made Natural State
Metals Synthetics
Plastics FabricsBronze Silver
The Victorious Athlete Charles V
Managing Taxonomies Museums purchase software that allows them to
catalog, publish and manage their collection
IT department works with curators, data managers and conservators to determine which data fields to include/how to format.
Maintenance is constant.
Example: The Museum System (TMS)
The Museum System is a collections management software.
TMS is open architecture, so collections data can be integrated with other management systems.
“Light box” display mode on TMS
Taxonomies informing web galleries
Museums use their taxonomy and reverse the structure to make a more user friendly “bottom up” approach.
The Victorious Athlete Charles VBalance
Bronze
The West WindDianna
Marble
Processed Material
Pros Of Formal Taxonomies Taxonomies serves the needs of the museum
workers.
Top down approach allows for strict control.
Authority control language insures consistency with other institutions.
Cons of Formal Taxonomies Taxonomies don’t serve the needs of
visitors/users.
Exploring is difficult to do when trapped in a strict classification system.
Users who are not familiar with the authority control terms/descriptors will have a hard time searching for specific pieces.
Folksonomies in Museums
Programmers and Social TaggingIn Museums Kathleen Dowling
Bridging the Semantic Gap Social tagging allows users to create a path to
information using familiar search terminology.
A social tagging interface builds a sense of community among museum users.
Tagging-related projects develop relationships between museums and their communities, and provide added value to museum collections.
Thoroughly tested tagging projects encourage more traffic to the museum's website and inevitably to the museum itself.
Example: Cleveland Museum of Art Online Information retrieval tool called Help
Others Find this Object, which utilized social tagging.
Now in use at the Memorial Art Gallery at the University of Rochester.
Requires users to think of their social tags in an organized, Taxonomic way.
“We're looking for simple, everyday terms that describe what you see…as well as more complex terminology related to the work's art historical or iconographical context. “
“subject:art techniques:genre scenes “
Example: Cleveland Museum of Art
Example: AMARA Online collections search interface that helps art
enthusiasts who wish to explore online art collections, but may be unable to effectively utilize taxonomic keywords due to a lack of art historical expertise or knowledge of art terminology.
AMARA helps users determine what types of art they are seeking by answering a few simple questions about their current beliefs and feelings.
Example: AMARA
Example: Indianapolis Museum of Art
User Interface Museums have previously been inspired by social
tagging applications such as Flickr and del.icio.us.
Programmers need to understand how to encourage users to continue to supply terminology.
Users should be able to login to a profile or account which tracks their activities.
Users engage in on-going relations with the institution.
Users want to continue their work from one login session to the next.
Example: steve.museum A social tagging system with a great deal of
variability in its interface.
Supports individual user logins.
Records user details, including email, for future contact.
Allows museum to record the 'environment' (interface settings) within which new tags were assigned.
Example: Whitney for Kids Allows kids to collect and organize artwork in
child-friendly version of the same content management system used by Whitney staff.
Puts children in the shoes of the curator – intellectually digesting the artwork and encouraging children to assign meaning and value to a piece.
“A Google eyed dog”
Example: Whitney for Kids
Example: Tagasauris National Endowment for the Humanities Grant
was awarded to:
The Museum of the City of New York and Tagasauris, a NYC technology company
to improve the Museum's digital record annotation capabilities with:
open-sourced ontologies and crowd-sourced workers
The Future for Art Museum Folksonomies Curators need to determine how to utilize this
new folksonomy alongside their own strict taxonomic vocabularies.
Further explore how to engage people, keep them engaged and foster communities of users who share common interests (genealogists, hobbyists, art-enthusiasts).
Use cyber communities to build real communities: research into creating this dynamic will be integrated into a museum’s approach to its public programming.
Bibliography Baca, M. (2006). Cataloging cultural objects: a guide to describing cultural works and their images.
Chicago: American Library Association. Beale, R., & C. Creed. (2009). Affective interaction: How emotional agents affect users.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67, 755–776. British Museum Materials Thesaurus. (n.d.). Welcome to Collections Link. Retrieved October 15,
2012 from http://www.collectionslink.org.uk/assets/the Brooklyn Museum: Browse Collections. (n.d.). Brooklyn Museum : Welcome. Retrieved October 24,
2012 from http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencoll Chae, G., & J. Kim. (2011a). Rethinking Museum Management by Exploring the Potential of Social
Tagging Systems in Online Art Museums. The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum, 3(3), 131–140.
Chae, G., & J. Kim. (2011b). Can Social Tagging Be a Tool to Reduce the Semantic Gap between Curators and Audiences? Making a Semantic Structure of Tags byIMplementing the Facetted Tagging System for Online Art Museums. In J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds). Museums and the Web 2011: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Retrieved from http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2011/papers/can_social_tagging_be_a_tool_to_reduce_the_sem
Chan, S. (2007). Tagging and Searching-Serendipity and museum collection databases. In D. Bearman and J. Trant (eds.). Museums and the Web 2007: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2007/papers/chan/chan.html
Chowdhury, G. G., & Chowdhury, S. (2007). Organizing information: from the shelf to the Web. London: Facet.
Chun, S., R. Cherry, D. Hiwiller, J. Trant, & B. Wyman. (2006). Steve. museum: an ongoing experiment in social tagging, folksonomy, and museums. In D. Bearman and J. Trant (eds.). Museums and the Web 2006: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Retrieved from http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2006/papers/wyman/wyman.html
Bibliography Cooper, Alan, Robert Reimann, & David Cronin. (2007). About face 3: the essentials of interaction
design. 3rd Ed. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing, Inc. p. 323-330. Dimaggio, Paul. (August 1987). Classification in Art. American Sociological Review. Vol. 52, No. 4. Getty Vocabularies (Getty Research Institute). (n.d.). The Getty. Retrieved October 15, 2012 from
http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/voca Gilchrest, A. (2001, June 1). Factors Affecting Controlled Vocabulary Usage in Art Information
Systems. A Master's paper for the M.S. in I.S. degree. Chapell Hill: University of North Carolina. Retrieved October 23, 2012 from http://www.ils.unc.edu/MSpapers/2709.pdf
Loasby K. (2006). Changing approaches to metadata at bbc.co.uk: from chaos to control and then letting go again. Bulletin for the American Society of Information Science & Technology, 33(1). October/November. Retrieved October 15, 2012 from http://asis.org/Bulletin/Oct-06/loasby.html
Maletic, Tamara & Michaelson, Dan. (n.d.). Whitney for Kids. LINKED BY AIR. Retrieved September 20, 2012 from http://new.linkedbyair.net/WhitneyKids
Marty, P.F., S. Sayre, & S. Fantoni. (2011). Personal digital collections: Involving users in the co-creation of digital cultural heritage. In G. Styliaras, D. Koukopoulos, and F. Lazarinis (eds.). Handbook of research on technologies and cultural heritage: Applications and environments. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. 285–304.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art - Collections Management Policy. (n.d.). The Metropolitan Museum of Art - Home . Retrieved September 12, 2012 from http://www.metmuseum.org/about-the-museum/collections-management-policy#records
The Museum System | Gallery Systems. (n.d.). Gallery Systems. Retrieved October 2, 2012, from http://www.gallerysystems.com/tms
Morville, Peter & Louis Rosenfeld. (2002). Information architecture for the world wide web. 2nd Ed. New York, NY: O’Reilly. p. 129-131.
Morville, Peter. (2005). Ambient findability. New York, NY: O’Reilly. p. 134-141.
Bibliography Park, Joon. (n.d.). [Demo Video] AMARA. Joon Park Online Portfolio. Retrieved September 6, 2012,
from http://joonpark.carbonmade.com/projects/4199233 Porter, Joshua. (2008). Designing for the social web. Berkeley, CA: New Riders. p. 24. Quintarelli E. (2005). Folksonomies: power to the people. In Proceedings of ISKO Italy Meeting.
Milan, June 2004. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.iskoi.org/doc/folksonomies.htm Richardson, Donald. (2006). Prologue for a Taxonomy of the Arts. Dialogues and Differences 2006
Symposium Proceedings. Retrieved September 27, 2012 from http://www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/ace/dialogue/symposium%20proceedings/7.%20Prologue%20For%20A%20Taxonomy%20Of%20The%20Arts.pdf
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. (n.d.). Steve: The Art Museum Social Tagging Project. Retrieved September 20, 2012, from http://www.sfmoma.org/about/research_projects/research_proj ects_steve
Smith, M. (2006). Viewer tagging in art museums: Comparisons to concepts and vocabularies of art museum visitors. In Advances in classification research, 17: Proceedings of the 17th ASIS&T SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop.
Trant, J. (2009). Tagging, Folksonomy and Art Museums: Results of steve.museum’s research. Archives & Museum Informatics. http://verne.steve.museum/SteveResearchReport2008.pdf
Trant, J., and B. Wyman. (2006). Investigating social tagging and folksonomy in art museums with steve. Museum. The Collaborative Web Tagging Workshop (WWW’06).
Trant, J. (2006). Social Classification and Folksonomy in Art Museums: early data from the steve.museum tagger prototype. A paper for the ASIST-CR Social Classification Workshop. Toronto: University of Toronto. Retrieved October 23, 2012 from http://www.archimuse.com/papers/asist-CR-steve-0611.pdf
Weinberger, David. (2007) Everything is miscellaneous: The power of the new digital disorder. New York, NY: Times Books. p.165-169.
What is Iconclass? — Iconclass. (n.d.). Home — Iconclass. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.iconclass.nl/about-iconclass/what-is-iconclass
Folksonomies in Museums
Thank You!