<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Folksonomy vs. Taxonomy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.videntity.de/2007/07/30/folksonomy-vs-taxonomy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.videntity.de/2007/07/30/folksonomy-vs-taxonomy/</link>
	<description>because your identity matters</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:50:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Getting interest of people by analysing tags an compare them to encyclopedias &#124; vIdentity</title>
		<link>http://www.videntity.de/2007/07/30/folksonomy-vs-taxonomy/comment-page-1/#comment-8</link>
		<dc:creator>Getting interest of people by analysing tags an compare them to encyclopedias &#124; vIdentity</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:53:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.videntity.de/2007/07/30/folksonomy-vs-taxonomy/#comment-8</guid>
		<description>[...] at the following drawing. Some weeks ago i thought about how to connect the tags with some order. Slowly it gets clearer. One have to use existing classifiations. My first try will use wikipedia [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] at the following drawing. Some weeks ago i thought about how to connect the tags with some order. Slowly it gets clearer. One have to use existing classifiations. My first try will use wikipedia [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sebastian</title>
		<link>http://www.videntity.de/2007/07/30/folksonomy-vs-taxonomy/comment-page-1/#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator>sebastian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Aug 2007 11:06:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.videntity.de/2007/07/30/folksonomy-vs-taxonomy/#comment-7</guid>
		<description>Here is an other answer. To suit the whole thing together you&#039;ll have to build up an ontology by using tagging and make some asserstions: &lt;a href=&quot;http://tomgruber.org/writing/ontology-of-folksonomy.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The TagOntology&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here is an other answer. To suit the whole thing together you&#8217;ll have to build up an ontology by using tagging and make some asserstions: <a href="http://tomgruber.org/writing/ontology-of-folksonomy.htm" rel="nofollow">The TagOntology</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tobi</title>
		<link>http://www.videntity.de/2007/07/30/folksonomy-vs-taxonomy/comment-page-1/#comment-6</link>
		<dc:creator>tobi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:33:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.videntity.de/2007/07/30/folksonomy-vs-taxonomy/#comment-6</guid>
		<description>Hm well, I think they necessarily don&#039;t have to fit together 1:1. For me it&#039;s two different approaches: Taxonomy is top down, Folksonomy is bottom up!
Folksonomy has the intances (data) and needs classes, Ontology has the classes and needs instances. In case of a good ontology they may meet in between, but yeah - this is the trick!
Recommendation systems which offers classes of the ontology to tag may bring them both together!?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hm well, I think they necessarily don&#8217;t have to fit together 1:1. For me it&#8217;s two different approaches: Taxonomy is top down, Folksonomy is bottom up!<br />
Folksonomy has the intances (data) and needs classes, Ontology has the classes and needs instances. In case of a good ontology they may meet in between, but yeah &#8211; this is the trick!<br />
Recommendation systems which offers classes of the ontology to tag may bring them both together!?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
