Should this page be re-titled "organizational terminology," and "Harmonized Groupings" be a sub-section?
Or should there be another page to more loosely collect taxonomy/terminology? It seems to make sense to me to collect with absolute minimal sorting, and then to sort in proposed groupings. Lippe 08:47, 7 January 2012 (CET)
[edit] Brain dump on application within wiki
('cuz that's what I know) Some of the ideas we discussed during the meeting have been bouncing around in my head and I want to just lay it out to see if I'm relating things correctly.
- The point
- The purpose of the discussion is to help interested individuals to intuitively locate relevant information via diverse channels. In practice this means to improve the accuracy and granularity of search engines which the target audiences use as thinking extensions.
- The audience
- The audience is relatively narrow: people who may have a sympathetic worldview, who are familiar with the concept of context tagging, are reasonably high operational with digital interfaces. Relative to the world norm, they are highly educated, high SES/SoL, and above average leisure time.
- The method
- There are two elements: disseminating and getting buy-in to a standardized vocabulary/taxonomy/dictionary, and enabling implementations of the standards.
Assuming the above, we are referring to SEO, but fortunately on topics which are generally not targeted by main stream marketers. We should also be aware that search engines are not stupid, and do not blindly accept the precept that RDF is objectively useful (anyone remember <meta />?) Although our efforts may help organize our content, it will not be generalizable because the search engines must determine the trust value per source due to the vulnerability of these tools to biased manipulation, and crowd-sourced content is inherently vulnerable to marketers/SEO/spam. And both our goal and our methods are indistinguishable from theirs, from the point of view of search engines. (Our motives are pure...)
On the wiki it is simple to add an article to a category, which will be displayed at the bottom of the article somewhat akin to hash tags/topic tags on (micro)blogs. If we ensure all articles belong to at least one harmonized tag we begin to standardize the content. We can display tag clouds on a variety metrics - categories applied in the past X time period, article membership, number of edits to articles in a category, etc - either in individual articles or as a part of the sidebar navigation.
We can also apply the harmonized tags using templates using microformats, which might display like
|
#Technology,#Documentation,
|
And would add the appropriate categories to the page, as well as have the possibility of such metadata as author, date authored, tagger, date tagged, and as much complexity as we might wish to code into it. We can also develop an infrastructure for infobox templates - a sort of bare infobox which is easily customised for many purposes - with microformatting built-in.
Microformatting data is directly mine-able by users, as well as search engines. There are tools for most major browsers:
I don't think we'd want to be in the business of supporting/disseminating information about these tools, though. - Amgine / t·e 20:29, 12 April 2012 (CEST)
- This is exactly where my thinking was headed after reading the Boxes and Arrows articles. The page right now is unclear as to whether it's intended to serve as synonym ring or authority file. In addition, the "diverse channels"are not defined, and some are probably out of our current reach. Audience and method also need clarification if this to achieve something.
- I've been thinking mainly as synonym ring, to avoid the human effort involved in the outreach/buy-in effort - but this replaces it with technical problems, like implementing synonym rings across platforms. I've also been thinking of the audience as users of specific sites which can implement either a synonym ring, or can support standards by offering structured input. Lippe 23:55, 14 April 2012 (CEST)
