Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Pollard on a peer-to-peer expertise locator...

Expand Messages
  • Stephanie Lemieux
    Hi all, Ok, I m not quite sure what to make of Dave Pollard s recent post on what a massive, peer-to-peer expertise locator...
    Message 1 of 9 , May 16, 2006
      Hi all,
      Ok, I'm not quite sure what to make of Dave Pollard's recent post on
      what a massive, peer-to-peer expertise locator...
      http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2006/05/01.html

      I find his point on using a folksonomy rather than a taxonomy to tag
      expertise interesting - would people in the same domain end up
      converging fairly easily in terms of the vocabulary they use to
      describe themselves? Would a hundred taxonomists or IAs use the same
      kind of words to tag their profiles just by sharing practice?

      However, I really dislike the notion of voting on others' expertise,
      and I think that using willingness to spend time listening to someone
      as a guage of expertise a little bizarre.

      The blog has many interesting ideas though, I recommend giving it a
      scan.

      Stephanie
    • Gent, Andrew
      ... I don t agree with everything in Pollard s blog, but his remark concerning folkonomy of expertise is right on the money. Will people with similar skills
      Message 2 of 9 , May 16, 2006
        Message

        >>I find his point on using a folksonomy rather than a taxonomy to tag

        >>expertise interesting - would people in the
        same domain end up
        >>converging fairly easily in terms of the
        vocabulary they use to
        >>describe themselves? Would a hundred
        taxonomists or IAs use the same
        >>kind of words to tag their profiles
        just by sharing practice?

        I don't agree with everything in Pollard's blog, but his remark concerning folkonomy of expertise is right on the money. Will people with similar skills choose the same terms? I can think of several different answers to that question:

        • The first is -- they will if you help them. I am in the process of adding a similar feature to a system we are developing inhouse. Users can enter their own areas of interest (as plain text, comma separated). However, we also provide a list of interests others have already entered for easy click and choose. This is to encourage shared terminology, consistent spelling, etc. But it is not required in any way.
        • Past experience tends to indicate that without nudging like in #1, they won't converge. Think of plain text keyword fields that have often been used in the past to capture technology and other unsorted info. Something as simple as an email system comes out variously as "email", "SMTP", "e-mail", "exchange", "MS exchange", "Microsoft Exchange", "Outlook", etc.
        • Even *with* nudging, convergence is not necessarily the goal. There is significance in small differences and individuals may choose -- even when a pre-existing tag seems appropriate -- to enter something different to identify a specific uniqueness. Using another field which many of us are familiar with as an example, although there may be a tag for "Information Architect", someone may choose to identify themselves as "small ia" or "big IA" to add specificity.
        • Finally, terminology changes over time and as I mentioned above, the tag space itself will change rapidly as new members add their interpretation of areas of expertise. If I said "Information Architect" and "Knowledge Management" and someone later adds "Knowledge Architect", I would like to add "Knowledge Architect" to my set of skills to be included in the group so to speak. But for this to happen, I need to periodically check to see what new tags have been added. Your ability to motivate individuals to do this type of review and refinement will ultimately determine whether the system succeeds or not.
        My 2 cents,

        Andrew Gent
        Lead Knowledge Architect
        HP Services Consulting & Integration
        1.603.888.0370

      • Marcia Morante
        Andrew - You make some great points; I have a couple of comments/ question. It s always seemed that a very large number of participants (employee, in your
        Message 3 of 9 , May 16, 2006
          Message
          Andrew -
           
          You make some great points; I have a couple of comments/ question.  
           
          It's always seemed that a very large number of participants (employee, in your case) are necessary to make convergence  work, especially when individuals distinguish themselves with non-intuitive terms, such as "small IA" or "big IA".   It doesn't matter much when you're looking for photographs (flickr), but what about the knowledge workers at HP?  Will the inconsistency be a problem? 
           
          Also curious about whether you're  planning to do any work on the back end to create a "cloud" of associated terms?  Any thoughts about how people will be motivated to update their skill sets?  I'm always looking for ways to promote knowledge sharing within organizations. My experience is that it's not the norm.
           
          Thanks very much,
           
          Marcia
           
          Marcia Morante
          KCurve, Inc.
          (718)881-5915 - office
          (917)821-2087 - mobile
          http://kcurve.com
           


          From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gent, Andrew
          Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 1:03 PM
          To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [TaxoCoP] Pollard on a peer-to-peer expertise locator...

          >>I find his point on using a folksonomy rather than a taxonomy to tag
          >>expertise interesting - would people in the same domain end up
          >>converging fairly easily in terms of the vocabulary they use to
          >>describe themselves? Would a hundred taxonomists or IAs use the same
          >>kind of words to tag their profiles just by sharing practice?

          I don't agree with everything in Pollard's blog, but his remark concerning folkonomy of expertise is right on the money. Will people with similar skills choose the same terms? I can think of several different answers to that question:

          • The first is -- they will if you help them. I am in the process of adding a similar feature to a system we are developing inhouse. Users can enter their own areas of interest (as plain text, comma separated). However, we also provide a list of interests others have already entered for easy click and choose. This is to encourage shared terminology, consistent spelling, etc. But it is not required in any way.
          • Past experience tends to indicate that without nudging like in #1, they won't converge. Think of plain text keyword fields that have often been used in the past to capture technology and other unsorted info. Something as simple as an email system comes out variously as "email", "SMTP", "e-mail", "exchange", "MS exchange", "Microsoft Exchange", "Outlook", etc.
          • Even *with* nudging, convergence is not necessarily the goal. There is significance in small differences and individuals may choose -- even when a pre-existing tag seems appropriate -- to enter something different to identify a specific uniqueness. Using another field which many of us are familiar with as an example, although there may be a tag for "Information Architect", someone may choose to identify themselves as "small ia" or "big IA" to add specificity.
          • Finally, terminology changes over time and as I mentioned above, the tag space itself will change rapidly as new members add their interpretation of areas of expertise. If I said "Information Architect" and "Knowledge Management" and someone later adds "Knowledge Architect", I would like to add "Knowledge Architect" to my set of skills to be included in the group so to speak. But for this to happen, I need to periodically check to see what new tags have been added. Your ability to motivate individuals to do this type of review and refinement will ultimately determine whether the system succeeds or not.
          My 2 cents,

          Andrew Gent
          Lead Knowledge Architect
          HP Services Consulting & Integration
          1.603.888.0370

        • Stephanie Lemieux
          ... choose --even when a pre-existing tag seems appropriate -- to enter something different to identify a specific uniqueness. Indeed... I find even companies
          Message 4 of 9 , May 16, 2006
            Andrew said:
            > There is significance in small differences and individuals may
            choose --even when a pre-existing tag seems appropriate -- to enter
            something different to identify a specific uniqueness.

            Indeed... I find even companies have this urge when they write job
            postings. I am presently job hunting, and let me tell you there is
            nothing more irritating than having to run 10 different searches on
            job sites to hit all the possible names for the work I want to do...
            ...knowledge management...
            ...knowledge manager...
            ...content management...
            ...information architect...
            ...taxonomy...
            ...taxomist...
            Arg. The list goes on, and of course a lot job sites don't have any
            advanced search functions like truncation or even boolean!

            And I don't even try to use the categories they set up... IA and
            taxonomy can be under information technology, management, etc.
            How I long for a good taxonomy or even a good search tool.

            Sorry for the rant... :)
            Stephanie
          • Gent, Andrew
            ... (employee, in your case) are necessary to make convergence work, especially when individuals distinguish themselves with non-intuitive terms, such as
            Message 5 of 9 , May 16, 2006
              Message
               >> It's always seemed that a very large number of participants (employee, in your case) are necessary to make convergence  work, especially when individuals distinguish themselves with non-intuitive terms, such as "small IA" or "big IA".   It doesn't matter much when you're looking for photographs (flickr), but what about the knowledge workers at HP?  Will the inconsistency be a problem? 
              To be quite frank, it is too early to say. In general I would agree with you -- the ambiguity introduced by free tagging is counterbalanced by the volume. However, early results indicate that inconsistency is not a problem in our case. I actually have a concern at the other end: once the volume of tags gets too large, will it be hard to find appropriate matches in the sheer number of pre-existing tags?
               
              Mind you, we have a slight advantage being in a confined space (ie. corporate intranet). Where there is obvious inconsistency (one example so far: "Traveling" vs. "Travelling") we can easily contact the users and suggest resolutions.
               >> Also curious about whether you're  planning to do any work on the back end to create a "cloud" of associated terms?   
              Yes. At the moment you can browse the tags.  We do not intend to create explicit hierarchies, but you can browse combinations of tags (for example, people who are both in "Knowledge Management" and "Information Architecture"). I am currently working on generating a list of "related tags" which shows tags most likely to be refinement of the users tagged with the current set (so using the previous example, "SharePoint" and "Quality" might be examples). So "related tags" can be seen as clouds or as a sort of dynamic hierarchy.
              >> Any thoughts about how people will be motivated to update their skill sets?  I'm always looking for ways to promote knowledge sharing within organizations. My experience is that it's not the norm.
                 Again, we have the advantage of this expertise tagging being part of a larger project to aggregate personal and community information. So it is tied in with other explicit and implicit relationships. We plan to allow users to sign up (this system is voluntary)  for periodic updates. The updates would include new features of the system, as well as suggestions of relationships they might want to consider adding. Tags would be one of the suggestions (similar to the Amazon reminders "people who have similar expertise as you have also added....") We can also promote certain tag sets to specific communities defined by subscribers to certain forums, etc.

              Andrew Gent
              Lead Knowledge Architect
              HP Services Consulting & Integration
              1.603.888.0370

            • Marcia Morante
              Thanks for your thoughtful answers, Andrew. Sounds like an interesting project. Hope you ll share how it goes. marcia Marcia Morante KCurve, Inc.
              Message 6 of 9 , May 16, 2006
                Message
                Thanks for your thoughtful answers, Andrew.  Sounds like an interesting project.  Hope you'll share how it goes.
                 
                marcia
                 
                Marcia Morante
                KCurve, Inc.
                (718)881-5915 - office
                (917)821-2087 - mobile
                http://kcurve.com
                 


                From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gent, Andrew
                Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 3:18 PM
                To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [TaxoCoP] Pollard on a peer-to-peer expertise locator...

                 >> It's always seemed that a very large number of participants (employee, in your case) are necessary to make convergence  work, especially when individuals distinguish themselves with non-intuitive terms, such as "small IA" or "big IA".   It doesn't matter much when you're looking for photographs (flickr), but what about the knowledge workers at HP?  Will the inconsistency be a problem? 
                To be quite frank, it is too early to say. In general I would agree with you -- the ambiguity introduced by free tagging is counterbalanced by the volume. However, early results indicate that inconsistency is not a problem in our case. I actually have a concern at the other end: once the volume of tags gets too large, will it be hard to find appropriate matches in the sheer number of pre-existing tags?
                 
                Mind you, we have a slight advantage being in a confined space (ie. corporate intranet). Where there is obvious inconsistency (one example so far: "Traveling" vs. "Travelling") we can easily contact the users and suggest resolutions.
                 >> Also curious about whether you're  planning to do any work on the back end to create a "cloud" of associated terms?   
                Yes. At the moment you can browse the tags.  We do not intend to create explicit hierarchies, but you can browse combinations of tags (for example, people who are both in "Knowledge Management" and "Information Architecture"). I am currently working on generating a list of "related tags" which shows tags most likely to be refinement of the users tagged with the current set (so using the previous example, "SharePoint" and "Quality" might be examples). So "related tags" can be seen as clouds or as a sort of dynamic hierarchy.
                >> Any thoughts about how people will be motivated to update their skill sets?  I'm always looking for ways to promote knowledge sharing within organizations. My experience is that it's not the norm.
                   Again, we have the advantage of this expertise tagging being part of a larger project to aggregate personal and community information. So it is tied in with other explicit and implicit relationships. We plan to allow users to sign up (this system is voluntary)  for periodic updates. The updates would include new features of the system, as well as suggestions of relationships they might want to consider adding. Tags would be one of the suggestions (similar to the Amazon reminders "people who have similar expertise as you have also added....") We can also promote certain tag sets to specific communities defined by subscribers to certain forums, etc.

                Andrew Gent
                Lead Knowledge Architect
                HP Services Consulting & Integration
                1.603.888.0370

              • Kelly Green
                This is an interesting reference Stephanie. I read Dave Pollard on a semi-regular basis so I m familiar with his tendency to think big! I am stewing over this
                Message 7 of 9 , May 20, 2006
                  This is an interesting reference Stephanie. I read Dave Pollard on a semi-regular basis so I'm familiar with his tendency to think big!
                  I am stewing over this post -- which is good exercise and good writing fodder for my baby blog! :)

                  On one hand I follow his contention that terms change too quickly to rely on a formal taxonomy. I don't think that a tightly controlled vocabulary would be able to cope with the speed of change. Such a system would needs something a bit more dynamic -- thus he suggests folksonomies. Someone -- was it on this list -- indicated that they were trying a mixed approach of a controlled taxonomy supplemented by folksonomies that can feed the taxonomy.

                  It is not a given that experts will utilize the same terminology.  It was not until I became involved in a KM effort that I realized techies and info scientists were trying to solve information issues that librarianship had been dealing with for years. Likewise, I saw solutions from IA and content development that I could have really used as a solo librarian! It is not difficult, even in this well linked age, for people to be oblivious to similar issues in other circles of influence.

                  The situations can be quite similar -- and yet the specific contexts are different and may generate different terminology. I don't want to eliminate the serendipity that could be supported via a well-done cross-referencing of terms. I want to see such tools guide us to people no matter what their job label or academic degree says -- no matter if they refer to users, patrons, clients, customers, or people.

                  He also mentions pulling information from users' address book -- but not everyone uses interoperable programs (Outlook, Thunderbird, Eudora, etc etc.) -- or was he indicating an application for this particular project?  I have reread his entry and still cannot decide how he suggests we provide this information to a peer network.  In addition, I personally find myself uncertain about the idea of participating in peer networks unless I'm ensured that other data cannot be compromised.

                  He mentions that this "
                  can see this evolving in interesting ways. Corporations will initially want to use this within their Intranet firewalls to find experts within their own organizations, and won't want that data accessible outside the firewall. But information is always trying to be free, and once smaller organizations 'let it out', and buyers start looking for and expecting to see their
                  Knowledge does want to be free -- but not all knowledge is of value everywhere. Internal expertise may include the person who knows the most about the development history of a specific product or service. This is not the same sort of expertise that is generalized such as the best way to gather and organize historical information about product development. Thus, we do need to have a balanced view that not *all* information is of value outside of a specific context and thus not *all* information will fly as far free.

                  I too question the use of how long I would spend listening to the person to be a limited view of "expertise." I have an auto mechanic I would highly rec commend to anyone needing his expertise -- but I sure have no desire to sit and learn from him! When you open a concept like this to the public it needs to be able to include various perspectives and needs.

                  I look for experts  for many reasons:
                  • I want to learn from them
                  • I want to see examples
                  • I want to connect with their projects
                  • I want to know who they know
                  • I want someone to do something
                  There are people who are brilliant in their field, but  they are NOT speakers or teachers. Sometimes, I want to see details of a product.  Let me examine and dissect as much as they will let me. I can learn from their product.  On the other hand, there are enjoyable speakers that will not have the experience I am seeking.

                  Figuring out the best way to define and share experts is a juicy problem that is a huge information issue for the very reasons Dave states. The possible results are not limited in the same way that results to a request for what and where are.

                  He is ignoring such mechanisms that already exist in a lot of portal and collaboration platforms.  Within our portal, the expert systems is very simple and would not suffice in this context. Our system permits admins to assign users to topics and users (that have the permission to do so) can add themselves as an expert to any topic folder. We have talked about adding the ability to rate submitters based upon their submissions. However, submitters to our digital library are limited and some have already been through a rigorous review.

                  In addition are well known reputation systems that exist in Slash Dot, Amazon, EBay,  Each of these depend upon transactions -- either a comment posting and rating as a result of a known interaction or a history of posting behavior.  Amazon has the lowest bar to participation in that one need only sign up and click the five star rating of a reviewer's reviews.  Even in that case though, the users are rating the reviewer's writing -- not something so amorphous as someone's expertise.

                  It seems like there should be a way to cross this with a reputation system. Any such system has to have checks and balances to cope with human tendencies to use applications for their own purposes.

                  ~Kelly Green

                  Stephanie Lemieux <stephanieangelle.lemieux@...> wrote:
                  Hi all,
                  Ok, I'm not quite sure what to make of Dave Pollard's recent post on
                  what a massive, peer-to-peer expertise locator...
                  http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2006/05/01.html

                  I find his point on using a folksonomy rather than a taxonomy to tag
                  expertise interesting - would people in the same domain end up
                  converging fairly easily in terms of the vocabulary they use to
                  describe themselves? Would a hundred taxonomists or IAs use the same
                  kind of words to tag their profiles just by sharing practice?

                  However, I really dislike the notion of voting on others' expertise,
                  and I think that using willingness to spend time listening to someone
                  as a guage of expertise a little bizarre.

                  The blog has many interesting ideas though, I recommend giving it a
                  scan.

                  Stephanie
                    


                  Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone. Get Yahoo! Messenger with Voice

                • Amanda Xu
                  As far as I am concerned, the so-called peer-to-peer expertise location can be as unglamorous as ETL certain named entities and about-ness of them, and make
                  Message 8 of 9 , May 21, 2006
                    As far as I am concerned, the so-called peer-to-peer
                    expertise location can be as unglamorous as ETL
                    certain named entities and about-ness of them, and
                    make the result available to a query facility.

                    Cheers,

                    Amanda Xu


                    --- Kelly Green <bibliophile_kg@...> wrote:

                    > This is an interesting reference Stephanie. I read
                    > Dave Pollard on a semi-regular basis so I'm familiar
                    > with his tendency to think big!
                    > I am stewing over this post -- which is good
                    > exercise and good writing fodder for my baby blog!
                    > :)
                    >
                    > On one hand I follow his contention that terms
                    > change too quickly to rely on a formal taxonomy. I
                    > don't think that a tightly controlled vocabulary
                    > would be able to cope with the speed of change. Such
                    > a system would needs something a bit more dynamic --
                    > thus he suggests folksonomies. Someone -- was it on
                    > this list -- indicated that they were trying a mixed
                    > approach of a controlled taxonomy supplemented by
                    > folksonomies that can feed the taxonomy.
                    >
                    > It is not a given that experts will utilize the same
                    > terminology. It was not until I became involved in
                    > a KM effort that I realized techies and info
                    > scientists were trying to solve information issues
                    > that librarianship had been dealing with for years.
                    > Likewise, I saw solutions from IA and content
                    > development that I could have really used as a solo
                    > librarian! It is not difficult, even in this well
                    > linked age, for people to be oblivious to similar
                    > issues in other circles of influence.
                    >
                    > The situations can be quite similar -- and yet the
                    > specific contexts are different and may generate
                    > different terminology. I don't want to eliminate the
                    > serendipity that could be supported via a well-done
                    > cross-referencing of terms. I want to see such tools
                    > guide us to people no matter what their job label or
                    > academic degree says -- no matter if they refer to
                    > users, patrons, clients, customers, or people.
                    >
                    > He also mentions pulling information from users'
                    > address book -- but not everyone uses interoperable
                    > programs (Outlook, Thunderbird, Eudora, etc etc.) --
                    > or was he indicating an application for this
                    > particular project? I have reread his entry and
                    > still cannot decide how he suggests we provide this
                    > information to a peer network. In addition, I
                    > personally find myself uncertain about the idea of
                    > participating in peer networks unless I'm ensured
                    > that other data cannot be compromised.
                    >
                    > He mentions that this "
                    > can see this evolving in interesting ways.
                    > Corporations will initially want to use this within
                    > their Intranet firewalls to find experts within
                    > their own organizations, and won't want that data
                    > accessible outside the firewall. But information is
                    > always trying to be free, and once smaller
                    > organizations 'let it out', and buyers start looking
                    > for and expecting to see their
                    >
                    > Knowledge does want to be free -- but not all
                    > knowledge is of value everywhere. Internal expertise
                    > may include the person who knows the most about the
                    > development history of a specific product or
                    > service. This is not the same sort of expertise that
                    > is generalized such as the best way to gather and
                    > organize historical information about product
                    > development. Thus, we do need to have a balanced
                    > view that not *all* information is of value outside
                    > of a specific context and thus not *all* information
                    > will fly as far free.
                    >
                    > I too question the use of how long I would spend
                    > listening to the person to be a limited view of
                    > "expertise." I have an auto mechanic I would highly
                    > rec commend to anyone needing his expertise -- but I
                    > sure have no desire to sit and learn from him! When
                    > you open a concept like this to the public it needs
                    > to be able to include various perspectives and
                    > needs.
                    >
                    > I look for experts for many reasons:
                    >
                    > I want to learn from them
                    > I want to see examples
                    > I want to connect with their projects
                    > I want to know who they know
                    > I want someone to do something
                    > There are people who are brilliant in their field,
                    > but they are NOT speakers or teachers. Sometimes, I
                    > want to see details of a product. Let me examine
                    > and dissect as much as they will let me. I can learn
                    > from their product. On the other hand, there are
                    > enjoyable speakers that will not have the experience
                    > I am seeking.
                    >
                    > Figuring out the best way to define and share
                    > experts is a juicy problem that is a huge
                    > information issue for the very reasons Dave states.
                    > The possible results are not limited in the same way
                    > that results to a request for what and where are.
                    >
                    > He is ignoring such mechanisms that already exist in
                    > a lot of portal and collaboration platforms. Within
                    > our portal, the expert systems is very simple and
                    > would not suffice in this context. Our system
                    > permits admins to assign users to topics and users
                    > (that have the permission to do so) can add
                    > themselves as an expert to any topic folder. We have
                    > talked about adding the ability to rate submitters
                    > based upon their submissions. However, submitters to
                    > our digital library are limited and some have
                    > already been through a rigorous review.
                    >
                    > In addition are well known reputation systems that
                    > exist in Slash Dot, Amazon, EBay, Each of these
                    > depend upon transactions -- either a comment posting
                    > and rating as a result of a known interaction or a
                    > history of posting behavior. Amazon has the lowest
                    > bar to participation in that one need only sign up
                    > and click the five star rating of a reviewer's
                    > reviews. Even in that case though, the users are
                    > rating the reviewer's writing -- not something so
                    > amorphous as someone's expertise.
                    >
                    > It seems like there should be a way to cross this
                    > with a reputation system. Any such system has to
                    > have checks and balances to cope with human
                    > tendencies to use applications for their own
                    > purposes.
                    >
                    > ~~Kelly Green
                    >
                    > Stephanie Lemieux
                    > <stephanieangelle.lemieux@...> wrote:
                    > Hi all,
                    > Ok, I'm not quite sure what to make of Dave
                    > Pollard's recent post on
                    > what a massive, peer-to-peer expertise locator...
                    > http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2006/05/01.html
                    >
                    > I find his point on using a folksonomy rather than
                    > a taxonomy to tag
                    > expertise interesting - would people in the same
                    > domain end up
                    > converging fairly easily in terms of the vocabulary
                    > they use to
                    > describe themselves? Would a hundred taxonomists or
                    > IAs use the same
                    > kind of words to tag their profiles just by sharing
                    > practice?
                    >
                    > However, I really dislike the notion of voting on
                    > others' expertise,
                    > and I think that using willingness to spend time
                    > listening to someone
                    > as a guage of expertise a little bizarre.
                    >
                    > The blog has many interesting ideas though, I
                    > recommend giving it a
                    > scan.
                    >
                    > Stephanie
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ---------------------------------
                    > Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on
                    > PC-to-Phone. Get Yahoo! Messenger with Voice


                    Amanda Xu
                    58-11 197th St.
                    Fresh Meadows, NY 11365
                    718-990-6716 (voice)
                    axu789@... (email)










                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com
                  • Lee Romero
                    A bit belated, but thanks for sharing that, Stephanie. For what it s worth, we are considering exploring something like this within my company - in our case,
                    Message 9 of 9 , May 31, 2006
                      A bit belated, but thanks for sharing that, Stephanie.

                      For what it's worth, we are considering exploring something like this
                      within my company - in our case, we have a corporate directory that's
                      exposed through a web application for search. We have also
                      implemented indexing of individual workers' directory entries for
                      inclusion in our general intranet search (so that searching on
                      someone's name in the default search will show their listing as a
                      result).

                      The experiment we're considering is to simply add a new attribute to
                      the corporate directory that would be called "Skills" (or similar)
                      which would be self-entered by the worker, would have no predefined
                      list (just a comma-delimited format) and so would enable searching
                      among all of the workers' entries by keyword search to look for
                      matches on this field (or potentially any other).

                      Still not "there" yet, but I think it could be a very simple "quick
                      win" to get to an expertise locator without investing in creation and
                      maintenance of a skill taxonomy or a specific application to support
                      management of the data by the workers.

                      I'll post back when we have this working on how it goes.

                      Lee Romero

                      On 5/16/06, Stephanie Lemieux <stephanieangelle.lemieux@...> wrote:
                      > Hi all,
                      > Ok, I'm not quite sure what to make of Dave Pollard's recent post on
                      > what a massive, peer-to-peer expertise locator...
                      > http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2006/05/01.html
                      >
                      > I find his point on using a folksonomy rather than a taxonomy to tag
                      > expertise interesting - would people in the same domain end up
                      > converging fairly easily in terms of the vocabulary they use to
                      > describe themselves? Would a hundred taxonomists or IAs use the same
                      > kind of words to tag their profiles just by sharing practice?
                      >
                      > However, I really dislike the notion of voting on others' expertise,
                      > and I think that using willingness to spend time listening to someone
                      > as a guage of expertise a little bizarre.
                      >
                      > The blog has many interesting ideas though, I recommend giving it a
                      > scan.
                      >
                      > Stephanie
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.