I was thinking today how well the CCK08 tag works as a way of aggregating our content from any tool we wish to use on this course.
But once running courses in this way starts getting a bit more mainstream, unique tags are going to be key - and it must make sense to have some standardised tagging conventions.
I'm thinking of something like (institution code)+(course/module code)+(year/cohort code).
The second two can be agreed within an institution for uniqueness internally, but the first institution code would have to be agreed at a higher level, perhaps based on their URLs which are of course already unique.
This might make for some seriously lengthy tags...
No doubt someone else has already tried to force standardised tags on people before, but I've only started thinking about it today!
1 comments:
We had been thinking about this sort of thing too - and came up with the idea of having a "Tagging handbook" which would contain communally agreed tags for certain types of content. It may be better still to have an 'algorithm' for how to decide the tag, more in line with your suggestion, I think.
Part of me shies away from this though - whilst set tags are clearly useful for aggregation purposes, some people then seem to rely only on those tags and don't come up with their own, meaningful, tags. I think this has the issue of reducing some of the things I see as benefits of tagging. Although I am not good at practicing these, tagging makes me think more about the content so that I can come up with a tag which represents the content and which I will be able to use to find it again. It also causes me to think more about what other people might find to be a useful tag for the content.
I guess there are two types of tag here - those to facilitate machine readability and those to facilitate human use and encourage increased cognition. As long as the two are recognised as different, I suppose it doesn't matter too much.
Post a Comment