Talk:Knowledge tag

Merge discussion

I'm admirer of open source BUT...!!! IMHO this article as fully promotional to software product Jumper 2.0 and that is not good, not fits to Wikipedia. First of all - if one company for marketing reasons creates such buzzword (can you imagine "anti-knowledge tag" ?) it must be explained how it differ from Tag (metadata), but in this article word tag is even not wikified!! My assumtion for reason is obvious - hiding original word!!! This article MUST be merged with Tag (metadata) --AndriuZ (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Knowledge tags are a separate Knowledge Management domain and are not traditional metadata. This is a growing field of interest in KM and certainly deserves its own page. I would rather not see this new field of KM that is just beginning be hampered by any promotional aspects. --Kapilg99

I agree with the previous comment that knowledge makes it higher level, and somewhat different from Tag (metadata) which is more about computer sciences or Information system. Having said that, I also agree with the first comment that this article is somewhat weird. To summarise my thoughts, I really do not like the (metadata) attached for refering to tagging when it is used in the context of tagging such as del.icio.us, since it really makes this term very technical (I see tagging more as a concept, and indeed more related to 'knowledge science'-knowledge representation than Computer sciences ). What I would suggest would be to have two articles: Tag (metadata) and for instance Tagging. Just an opinion however . --Nabeth (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Agree on Merging After thoroughly reading this page, I realized that its content is basically describing the same exact topic discussed in Tag (metadata), only from a more scientific/research perspective. All the content in this page can fit well within the Tag (metadata) page, and in fact will definitely enrich it. On the other hand, keeping two separate pages just because of a disagreement on the interpretation of the topic discussed in both pages, is not useful to either page, and can be very confusing to readers. K.G. (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that probably the best thing to do here would be to replace this with a redirect, leaving this text in history. This contains too much meaningless text (Knowledge tags are a knowledge management discipline that leverages Enterprise 2.0 methodologies for users to capture insights, expertise, attributes, dependencies, or relationships associated with a data resource. It generally allows greater flexibility than other knowledge management classification systems.) to be worth preserving. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Support and Oppose Hi, I have two things to add: Merging would be acceptable, if the definition of Tag is changed, which is currently: a tag is a non-hierarchical keyword or term assigned to a piece of information. The reason is simple: The tags meant in this article are neither keyword nor terms nor necessarily non-hierarchical. But then, if you have to change the very definition of the article you merge into, shouldn't it rather be on a separate article? That is why I also oppose merging. I'm unsure, however, whether knowledge tag is the right title. There are more to choose from Entity Linking, Concept Tagging, Semantic Annotation. You might want to consider: 1. Faviki and Tagnauts are social bookmarking communities which restrict their users to tags to which Wikipedia articles exist. 2. RDFa, Zemanta 3. Also the more ontological approaches such as Ontology learning. Personally, I like the term Concept Tagging as this would imply that there is some sort of defined notion behind the tag and it is not just a keyword. I'm currently drafting a User:SebastianHellmann/Knowledge_extraction article in my user space. SebastianHellmann (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)