大眾標記法應用於考古文物描述之研究：以國小五年級學生標記十三行博物館文物為例

Abstract

隨著網路科技之興盛，許多博物館將其藏品數位化後置於網路上，以期供更多使用者取用。但是博物館界卻發現，使用者並不容易在網路上找到他們所需要的藏品。其中一項原因，可能是博物館描述藏品的詞彙與使用者所使用的語彙不同，致使用者較難檢索到其所需之藏品。因此，自2004年起便有steve project的試驗，以美術館之藏品為對象，進行大眾標記法(folksonomy)研究；而美國國會圖書館(Library of Congress)以及澳洲Powerhouse Museum亦開放部份藏品，讓使用者提供標記。上述研究指出，使用者標記之詞彙確與博物館專業詞彙不同，並肯定使用者之標記有助於藏品之檢索。不過，上述研究之標記對象多為藝術創作或是藝術品，大眾標記法是否適用於其他類型之文物，似乎仍有待進一步探討。由於研究者本身即為十三行博物館之解說員，在進行解說時常發現許多觀眾對於考古文物較不了解，故本研究乃選擇以十三行博物館之考古文物為標記對象，試圖了解大眾標記法是否對考古文物的描述有所助益。 本研究是以十三行博物館主要參觀族群之一的國小五年級學生作為研究對象，由台北縣、市兩所國小4個班級的118位五年級學生，針對十三行博物館8項考古文物之圖片進行標記。本標記研究是以班級為單位，在各班教室進行，由同學回答兩個基本問題：(1) 在網路上會以哪些詞彙來查找該文物， (2)其他可能用來描述該文物的詞彙為何。其後，並與由各班教導師挑選的3至4學生個別進行訪談(共15位)，以了解他們所給予標記的意義以及影響其標記之因素。 結果發現，學生的標籤基本上以名詞為主，並且通常會以該文物的可能名稱作為關鍵字；而學生在標記時通常會使用較生活化、通俗的字彙作為標籤。而影響學生標記的因素主要有四項，分別是文物之外觀、學生之生活背景、文物以外之其他因素，以及檢索時的考量。而學生之標籤與考古學家或博物館專家描述文物之語言的不同之處，在於學生會以較生活化的語言，將文物的特徵都置於同一個標籤之中，博物館專業人員則是將文物的特徵分門別類，以專業的術語進行描述。建議未來若欲設計考古文物之後設資料，或許可考慮以較簡單易懂的詞彙作為後設資料之項目，以較生活化的語言描述文物，讓使用者可以容易地了解文物，拉近博物館與使用者間之距離。同時，如何將博物館後設資料與學生（或一般使用者）提供的適用標記有效結合，以提升使用者查詢文物的檢索效益，是博物館開放大眾標記藏品後需積極解決的問題。另外，考古文物本身及其時代背景與參與標記的學生的生活經驗有相當差距，故他們所給的標記中，有部分與其相對應的文物可說毫無關連、甚至是錯誤的。由於考古文物的解讀需要專業知識，大眾所提供的標記有些並不適當，所以大眾標記法是否適用於考古文物，仍賴更多的實證研究做進一步的探索。

With the highly improved computer and network technology, a number of museums have started to put their digitized collections on the Internet. This renders the users to be able to access their collections via the net. However, some scholars found that it was not easy for users to retrieve the items they need. One reason is that the descriptive terms used by the museums might be different from the search terms used by users. Thus, some researchers suggested that the application of folksonomy might help to minimize the problems. Based on the results of the Steve project and other similar studies, researchers confirmed that the user vocabularies indeed are different from what the museums use to describe the collections. They also noticed that these user vocabularies might help to increase the effectiveness of retrieval. The findings of the previous studies inspire the author to explore whether the application of folksonomy to archaeological artifacts is plausible or not. As a docent working in the Shihsanhang Museum of Archaeology, the author notices that many visitors do not have a basic understanding about the nature of archaeological artifacts. So, using the artifacts of the Shihsanhang Museum of Archaeology as an example, the author intends to investigate the applicability of applying folksonomy to archaeological artifacts. Because the fifth grade students have been one of the main visitor groups of the museum, 118 fifth graders from 4 classes were invited to participate in this study. They were asked to tag 8 pictures of the archaeological artifacts selected from the Museum. In addition, 15 participants were each invited to participate in a follow-up interview to explain the meanings behind the tags and the factors that affected their selection of tags. The results show that the tags given by these 5th graders were mainly based on their observation and experience. They tried to assign certain names to each artifact based on the material, shape, or function of that artifact. Their vocabularies were general and common terms acquired from daily life experience. Although their vocabularies were different from the jargons or scientific terms used by archaeologists or professionals, the approaches they employed to examine the artifacts were quite similar. It would be helpful for users if the labels for the archaeological metadata elements as well as the description given the metadata could be more general and common. This will help them to find the artifacts they want and to understand the metadata description more easily. In general, the factors that affect their assignment of tags could be grouped into four types: the artifact itself (such as its shape, function, or material), previous experience, other materials accompanied with the artifact, and the concern for retrieval. The results suggest that these layperson vocabularies might be somewhat useful in increasing the effectiveness of retrieval. However, the point is how to link the layperson vocabularies and the professional metadata created for each artifact. Moreover, some portion of these tags were incorrect or not usable. This indicates a critical issue for those who want to apply folksonomy to archaeological artifacts. Since it is necessary to have certain archaeological knowledge in order to correctly describe an archaeological artifact, it is understandable that the vocabularies given by laypersons would present some problems. Thus, more studies would be needed to investigate the applicability of applying folksonomy to archaeological artifacts.