3 thoughts on “Four sources of metadata about things”

  1. I like this like of thinking; you are definitely onto something. A couple of thoughts pop immediately to mind:

    There is a fine line between “professional” and “passionate amateur” — in some cases they are nearly indistinguishable (the field of astronomy comes, for example). There is also a line between those and random tagging, and I think that is the driving concept in your second heading. Perhaps the first category speaks of “organized” or “systemic” and the second of “individualized” or “personalized.”

    The third category is right on the money.

    The single word definition of the fourth category is too fuzzy for me. The concept that comes to mind is “knowledge in the network” — that there is information in the relationship between items. That relationship could be a semantically-typed one, a derived “page rank”, or other forms of graph analysis. Perhaps a term along those lines would fit better.

  2. The more I think about it and go back to it (and I’ve read this brief post a few times now), the more I am convinced that this taxonomy is really genius and important. As are your comments about how they are not mutually exclusive, but can instead be used in concert, indeed to be mutually supportive of each other. Thanks to Peter for re-alerting me to it, after I read it once but didn’t realize how genius it was.

Comments are closed.