Comparing revisions for WikkaFolksonomy
- [19536] 2008-02-07 09:28:38 by HackArt (unregistered user)
- [19540] 2008-02-07 09:41:58 by HackArt (unregistered user)
Additions:
~& Tags offers this opportunity by introducing an overlaid namespace which is flexible. Tags can be used for ontology building, but they are not limited to categorization (a rather static usage): they can be used to group pages for any aspects, static or dynamic: for example, I like to use wiki for managing tasks. In this usage, assigning "status" information (like "todo", "completed", "urgent") is very useful, as well as supporting quick access to pages matching a given status (like "urgent"). This is just an example of using tags which is not categorization.
~& One may objects that this is //bad// usage, hackish way or whatever; it works very well for me, and I don't see any objective reason not to use them the way it //helps// me, and certainly not to comply dogmatic principles about ontologies ;-). We should also remembers how the hypertext experts community criticized the web model when it was introduced, how messy it was considered with only one link type to support all referencing needs. The freedom, simplicity and flexibility offered by its linking model is one of the reason that let the web emerge from other hypertext systems (like gopher, which had a semantically richer linking model).
~& One may objects that this is //bad// usage, hackish way or whatever; it works very well for me, and I don't see any objective reason not to use them the way it //helps// me, and certainly not to comply dogmatic principles about ontologies ;-). We should also remembers how the hypertext experts community criticized the web model when it was introduced, how messy it was considered with only one link type to support all referencing needs. The freedom, simplicity and flexibility offered by its linking model is one of the reason that let the web emerge from other hypertext systems (like gopher, which had a semantically richer linking model).
Deletions:
~& One may objects that this is //bad// practice, hackish way or whatever; it works very well for me, and I don't see any objective reason not to use them the way it //helps// me, and certainly not to comply some dogmatic principles ;-). We should also remember how the hypertext experts community criticized the web model when it was introduced, how messy it was considered with only one link type to support all referencing needs. The freedom, simplicity and flexibility offered by its linking model is one of the reason that let the web emerge from other hypertext systems (like gopher, which had a semantically richer linking model).
