Web 2.0 Expo: Ontologies for the Internet

Definitely not my strong point. But I wanted to go to this given all the working in tagging as of late.

Presenter: Duane Nickull

  • folksonomies became powerful quickly because people got tired of waiting for the so-called AI
  • problem with folksonomies is that they’re language and context dependent (e.g. car vs. voiture)
  • also reusing a term for different meanings
  • need a shared conceptualisation of a domain
  • one of the major problems with social networking is having to redefine connections on each new system
  • could use a system to connect folksonomy tag clouds to relate to objects to acquire meaning (will not happen overnight)
  • Three methods of formal logic:
    • Deduction (Every bird flies. Tweey is a bird. Infer: Tweety flies.)
    • Induction (Tweety, Polly, Hooty are birds. They fly. Infer: All birds fly.)
    • Abduction (Every bird flies. Tweety flies. Infer: Tweety is a bird.)
    • Analogy (uses a combination of the previous three)
  • ontology would be to allow a folksonomy to relate to taxonomy terms, and engage a user to disambiguate
  • Hook tags through Crowd Find
  • Google and Yahoo have not released their onotologies, which are very in-depth and accurate
  • Question: What about the semantic web?
    • There’s a lot of work going on, but they (like us) need this solved before it’ll truly work. There’s not enough concrete work for it to work. We’re actually further ahead with folksonomies in Web 2.0 than the semantic web efforts.
  • Question: Folksonomies tend to be more generalised. Ontologies need more specificity. How will this be resolved?
    • At this point, don’t know. Too hard to tell, but it is a low-hanging fruit problem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *