My paper led this session

Social Classification and Folksonomy in Art Museums: early data from the steve.museum tagger prototype.

J. Trant (Archives & Museum informatics / University of Toronto)
see http://www.archimuse.com/papers/asist-CR-steve-0611.pdf

The presentation focused mostly on the research project, and the kinds of studies we are projecting of users, the tag environment and te resulting folksonomies.

Viewer tagging in art museums: Comparisons to concepts and vocabularies of art museum visitors
Martha Kellogg Smith (University of Washington, USA)
http://www.slais.ubc.ca/users/sigcr/sigcr-06smith.pdf

Can studies of users of art help us understand tagging?

assumes that the taggers of works of art are non-specialist and that non-specialists have problems with technical terminology.

asserts that tags are primarily pre-iconographic, and therefore can't help people learn about art concepts.

jt: BUT is it possible to draw conclusions about what people will do online based on what people do offline. or to say that information spaces should be designed based on the same principles as physical spaces? If that true, then wouldn't every online shopping site be modeled on the shopping mall? There's a reason there are no-longer elevators in on-line museums.

User-defined classification on the online photo sharing site Flickr ... Or, How I learned to stop worrying and love the million typing monkeys

Megan Winget (University of Texas at Austin, USA)
http://www.slais.ubc.ca/users/sigcr/sigcr-06winget.pdf

flickr works for finding works that are related to the concept, but it isn't known item searching.
- traditional ir measures may not be appropriate
- hard to study systems that are closed

discussion - rosch and 'basic-level' recognition - comparison to language and interpretation

jt -- what are the appropriate frameworks within which to study flickr? is an ir-based model an appropriate one? how does that premise stand up to the high number of flickr users who don't tag their pictures at all?