DOCSLIB.ORG

Exploring the Value of Folksonomies for Creating Semantic Metadata Hend S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Exploring the Value of Folksonomies for Creating Semantic Metadata Hend S Int’l Journal on Semantic Web & Information Systems, 3(1), 13-39, January-March 2007 13 Exploring The Value Of Folksonomies For Creating Semantic Metadata Hend S. Al-Khalifa, University of Southampton, UK Hugh C. Davis, University of Southampton, UK ABSTRACT Finding good keywords to describe resources is an on-going problem. Typically, we select such words manually from a thesaurus of terms, or they are created using auto- matic keyword extraction techniques. Folksonomies are an increasingly well-populated source of unstructured tags describing Web resources. This article explores the value of the folksonomy tags as a potential source of keyword metadata by examining the relationship between folksonomies, community produced annotations, and keywords extracted by machines. The experiment has been carried out in two ways: subjectively, by asking two human indexers to evaluate the quality of the generated keywords from both systems; and automatically, by measuring the percentage of overlap between the folksonomy set and machine generated keywords set. The results of this experiment show that the folksonomy tags agree more closely with the human generated keywords than those automatically generated. The results also showed that the trained indexers pre- ferred the semantics of folksonomy tags compared to keywords extracted automatically. These results can be considered as evidence for the strong relationship of folksonomies to the human indexer’s mindset, demonstrating that folksonomies used in the del.icio. us bookmarking service are a potential source for generating semantic metadata to annotate Web resources. Keywords: metadata; Web technologies; folksonomy; keyword extraction; tags; social bookmarking services; collaborative tagging INTRODUCTION us2, and Furl3 rely extensively on folk- Nowadays, contemporary Web sonomies. Folksonomies, as a widely applications such as Flickr1, del.icio. accepted neologism and one of Web Copyright © 2007, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited. 14 Int’l Journal on Semantic Web & Information Systems, 3(1), 13-39, January-March 2007 2.0 signatures, can be thought of as social bookmarking services, followed keywords that describe what a docu- by a review of related work concerning ment is about. folksonomies and keyword extraction Since people started using the del. techniques. We then discuss the ex- icio.us service in late 2003, many re- perimental setup and the data selection, sources have been bookmarked and along with the four experiments we tagged collaboratively. Using the ser- have carried out to examine the degree vice, people usually tag a resource with of the relationship. Finally, the results words they feel best describe what it is of these experiments, as well as a case about; these words or tags are popularly study, conclusion, and future work are known as folksonomies and the process discussed. as collaborative tagging. We believe that most folksonomy FOLKSONOMY AND SOCIAL words are more related to a profes- BOOKMARKING SERVICES sional indexer’s mindset than keywords The growing popularity of folkson- extracted using generic or proprietary omies and social bookmarking services automatic keyword extraction tech- has changed how people interact with niques. the Web. Many people have used social The main questions this experiment bookmarking services to bookmark Web tries to answer are (1) Do folksonomies resources they feel most interesting to only represent a set of keywords that them; and folksonomies were used in describe what a document is about, or these services to represent knowledge do they go beyond the functionality about the bookmarked resource. of index keywords? (2) What is the relationship between folksonomy tags Folksonomies and keywords assigned by an expert The word folksonomy is a blend of indexer? (3) Where are folksonomies the two words “folks” and “taxonomy.” positioned in the spectrum from profes- It was first coined by the information sionally assigned keywords to context- architect Thomas Vander Wal in August based machine extracted keywords? of 2004. Folksonomy, as Vander Wal In order to find out if folksonomies (2006) defines, is: can improve on automatically extracted keywords, it is significant to examine … the result of personal free tagging of the relationship between them, and information and objects (anything with between them and professional human a URL) for one’s own retrieval. The indexer keywords. tagging is done in a social environment To study these relationships, our (shared and open to others). The act of article is organized as follows: we begin tagging is done by the person consuming with an overview of folksonomies and the information. Copyright © 2007, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited. Int’l Journal on Semantic Web & Information Systems, 3(1), 13-39, January-March 2007 15 Figure 1. Excerpt from the del.icio.us service showing the tags (Blogs, Internet, ... ,cool) for the URL of the article by Jonathan J. Harris, the last bookmarker (pacoc, 3mins ago) and the number of people who bookmarked this URL (1494 other people) From a categorization perspec- Social Bookmarking Service tive, folksonomy and taxonomy can Social bookmarking services are be placed at the two opposite ends of server-side Web applications where categorization spectrum. The major people can use these services to save difference between folksonomies and their favorite links for later retrieval. taxonomies is discussed thoroughly in Each bookmarked URL is accompanied Shirky (2005) and Quintarelli (2005). by a line of text describing it and a set Taxonomy is a top-down approach. of tags (aka folksonomies) assigned by It is a simple kind of ontology that pro- people who bookmarked the resource vides hierarchical and domain specific (as shown in Figure 1). vocabulary, which describes the ele- A plethora of bookmarking services ments of a domain and their hierarchal such as Furl4, Spurl5, and del.icio.us ex- relationship. Moreover, they are created ists; however, del.icio.us is considered by domain experts and librarians, and one of the largest social bookmarking require an authoritative source. services on the Web. Since its introduc- In contrast, folksonomy is a bottom- tion in December 2003, it has gained up approach. It does not hold a specific popularity over time and there have vocabulary nor does it have an explicit been more than 90,000 registered users hierarchy. It is the result of peoples’ using the service and over a million own vocabulary, thus, it has no limit (it unique tagged bookmarks (Menchen, is open ended), and tags are not stable 2005; Sieck, 2005). Visitors and users nor comprehensive. Most importantly, of the del.icio.us service can browse folksonomies are generated by people the bookmarked URLs by user, by who have spent their time exploring keywords (i.e., tags or folksonomies), and interacting with the tagged resource or by a combination of both techniques. (Wikipedia, 2006). By browsing others’ bookmarks, people can learn how other people tag their Copyright © 2007, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited. 16 Int’l Journal on Semantic Web & Information Systems, 3(1), 13-39, January-March 2007 resources thus increasing their aware- icio.us community). By the same token, ness of the different usage of the tags. Guber is working on a system called In addition, any user can create an “TagOntology” to build ontologies inbox for other users’ bookmarks by out of folksonomies, and in his article subscribing to another user’s del.icio. entitled “Ontology of Folksonomy: us pages. Also, users can subscribe to A Mash-up of Apples and Oranges” RSS feeds for a particular tag, group of (Gruber, 2005) he casts some light on tags or other users. design considerations needed to be taken into account when constructing ontolo- RELATED WORK gies from tags. In addition, Ohmukai, In this section, we review related Hamasaki, and Takeda (2005) proposed work discussing state-of-the-art folk- a social bookmark system called “so- sonomy research and various techniques cialware” using several representations in the keyword extraction domain. of personal network and metadata to construct a community-based ontology. State-of-the-Art Folksonomy The personal network was constructed Research using Friend-Of-A-Friend (FOAF), There is alot of recent research deal- Rich Site Summary (RSS), and simple ing with folksonomies, among these are Resource Description Framework overviews of social bookmarking tools Schema (RDFS), while folksonomies with special emphasis on folksonomies were used as the metadata. Their system as provided by Hammond, Hannay, allows users to browse friends’ book- Lund, and Scott (2005) and other re- marks on their personal networks and search papers that discuss the strengths map their own tag onto more than one and weaknesses of folksonomies (Guy tag from different friends, so that they & Tonkin, 2006; Kroski, 2006; Mathes, are linked by the user. This technique 2004; Quintarelli, 2005). will allow for efficient recommenda- Another genre of research has ex- tion for tags because it is derived from perimented with folksonomy systems. personal interest and trust. They also For instance, Mika (2005) has carried used their social bookmark system out a study to construct a community- “socialware” to design an RDF-based based ontology using del.icio.us as a metadata framework to support open data source. He created two lightweight and distributed models. ontologies out of folksonomies; one is Golder and Huberman (2006) have the actor-concept (user-concept) ontol- analyzed the structure of collaborative ogy and the other is the concept-instance tagging folksonomies) to discover the ontology. The goal of his experiment regularities in user activity, tag frequen- was to show that ontologies can be built cies, the kind of tags used, and bursts of using the context of the community in popularity in bookmarked URLs in the which they are created (i.e., the del.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Metadata and GIS
    Metadata and GIS ® An ESRI White Paper • October 2002 ESRI 380 New York St., Redlands, CA 92373-8100, USA • TEL 909-793-2853 • FAX 909-793-5953 • E-MAIL [email protected] • WEB www.esri.com Copyright © 2002 ESRI All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. The information contained in this document is the exclusive property of ESRI. This work is protected under United States copyright law and other international copyright treaties and conventions. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, except as expressly permitted in writing by ESRI. All requests should be sent to Attention: Contracts Manager, ESRI, 380 New York Street, Redlands, CA 92373-8100, USA. The information contained in this document is subject to change without notice. U.S. GOVERNMENT RESTRICTED/LIMITED RIGHTS Any software, documentation, and/or data delivered hereunder is subject to the terms of the License Agreement. In no event shall the U.S. Government acquire greater than RESTRICTED/LIMITED RIGHTS. At a minimum, use, duplication, or disclosure by the U.S. Government is subject to restrictions as set forth in FAR §52.227-14 Alternates I, II, and III (JUN 1987); FAR §52.227-19 (JUN 1987) and/or FAR §12.211/12.212 (Commercial Technical Data/Computer Software); and DFARS §252.227-7015 (NOV 1995) (Technical Data) and/or DFARS §227.7202 (Computer Software), as applicable. Contractor/Manufacturer is ESRI, 380 New York Street, Redlands, CA 92373- 8100, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Creating Permissionless Blockchains of Metadata Records Dejah Rubel
    Articles No Need to Ask: Creating Permissionless Blockchains of Metadata Records Dejah Rubel ABSTRACT This article will describe how permissionless metadata blockchains could be created to overcome two significant limitations in current cataloging practices: centralization and a lack of traceability. The process would start by creating public and private keys, which could be managed using digital wallet software. After creating a genesis block, nodes would submit either a new record or modifications to a single record for validation. Validation would rely on a Federated Byzantine Agreement consensus algorithm because it offers the most flexibility for institutions to select authoritative peers. Only the top tier nodes would be required to store a copy of the entire blockchain thereby allowing other institutions to decide whether they prefer to use the abridged version or the full version. INTRODUCTION Several libraries and library vendors are investigating how blockchain could improve activities such as scholarly publishing, content dissemination, and copyright enforcement. A few organizations, such as Katalysis, are creating prototypes or alpha versions of blockchain platforms and products.1 Although there has been some discussion about using blockchains for metadata creation and management, only one company appears to be designing such a product. Therefore, this article will describe how permissionless blockchains of metadata records could be created, managed, and stored to overcome current challenges with metadata creation and management. LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT PRACTICES Metadata standards, processes, and systems are changing to meet twenty-first century information needs and expectations. There are two significant limitations, however, to our current metadata creation and modification practices that have not been addressed: centralization and traceability.
    [Show full text]
  • Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: a Review and Framework
    Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework Item Type Journal Article (On-line/Unpaginated) Authors Trant, Jennifer Citation Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework 2009-01, 10(1) Journal of Digital Information Journal Journal of Digital Information Download date 02/10/2021 03:25:18 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/105375 Trant, Jennifer (2009) Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework. Journal of Digital Information 10(1). Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework J. Trant, University of Toronto / Archives & Museum Informatics 158 Lee Ave, Toronto, ON Canada M4E 2P3 jtrant [at] archimuse.com Abstract This paper reviews research into social tagging and folksonomy (as reflected in about 180 sources published through December 2007). Methods of researching the contribution of social tagging and folksonomy are described, and outstanding research questions are presented. This is a new area of research, where theoretical perspectives and relevant research methods are only now being defined. This paper provides a framework for the study of folksonomy, tagging and social tagging systems. Three broad approaches are identified, focusing first, on the folksonomy itself (and the role of tags in indexing and retrieval); secondly, on tagging (and the behaviour of users); and thirdly, on the nature of social tagging systems (as socio-technical frameworks). Keywords: Social tagging, folksonomy, tagging, literature review, research review 1. Introduction User-generated keywords – tags – have been suggested as a lightweight way of enhancing descriptions of on-line information resources, and improving their access through broader indexing. “Social Tagging” refers to the practice of publicly labeling or categorizing resources in a shared, on-line environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Metadata Creation Practices in Digital Repositories and Collections
    Metadata Creation Practices in Digital Repositories and Collections: Schemata, Jung-ran Park and Selection Criteria, and Interoperability Yuji Tosaka This study explores the current state of metadata-creation development of such a mediation mechanism calls for practices across digital repositories and collections by an empirical assessment of various issues surrounding metadata-creation practices. using data collected from a nationwide survey of mostly The critical issues concerning metadata practices cataloging and metadata professionals. Results show across distributed digital collections have been rela- that MARC, AACR2, and LCSH are the most widely tively unexplored. While examining learning objects and used metadata schema, content standard, and subject- e-prints communities of practice, Barton, Currier, and Hey point out the lack of formal investigation of the metadata- controlled vocabulary, respectively. Dublin Core (DC) is creation process.2 As will be discussed in the following the second most widely used metadata schema, followed section, some researchers have begun to assess the current by EAD, MODS, VRA, and TEI. Qualified DC’s wider state of descriptive practices, metadata schemata, and use vis-à-vis Unqualified DC (40.6 percent versus 25.4 content standards. However, the literature has not yet developed to a point where it affords a comprehensive percent) is noteworthy. The leading criteria in selecting picture. Given the propagation of metadata projects, it is metadata and controlled-vocabulary schemata are collec- important to continue to track changes in metadata-cre- tion-specific considerations, such as the types of resources, ation practices while they are still in constant flux. Such efforts are essential for adding new perspectives to digital nature of the collection, and needs of primary users and library research and practices in an environment where communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Geotagging Photos to Share Field Trips with the World During the Past Few
    Geotagging photos to share field trips with the world During the past few years, numerous new online tools for collaboration and community building have emerged, providing web-users with a tremendous capability to connect with and share a variety of resources. Coupled with this new technology is the ability to ‘geo-tag’ photos, i.e. give a digital photo a unique spatial location anywhere on the surface of the earth. More precisely geo-tagging is the process of adding geo-spatial identification or ‘metadata’ to various media such as websites, RSS feeds, or images. This data usually consists of latitude and longitude coordinates, though it can also include altitude and place names as well. Therefore adding geo-tags to photographs means adding details as to where as well as when they were taken. Geo-tagging didn’t really used to be an easy thing to do, but now even adding GPS data to Google Earth is fairly straightforward. The basics Creating geo-tagged images is quite straightforward and there are various types of software or websites that will help you ‘tag’ the photos (this is discussed later in the article). In essence, all you need to do is select a photo or group of photos, choose the "Place on map" command (or similar). Most programs will then prompt for an address or postcode. Alternatively a GPS device can be used to store ‘way points’ which represent coordinates of where images were taken. Some of the newest phones (Nokia N96 and i- Phone for instance) have automatic geo-tagging capabilities. These devices automatically add latitude and longitude metadata to the existing EXIF file which is already holds information about the picture such as camera, date, aperture settings etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Do Folksonomies Need Semantic Web Technologies? Hak-Lae Kim Samsung Electronics Co., LTD
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) Americas Conference on Information Systems AMCIS 2010 Proceedings (AMCIS) 8-2010 Why Do Folksonomies Need Semantic Web Technologies? Hak-Lae Kim Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. 416, Maetan-3dong, Yeongtong-gu Suwon-city, Gyeonggi-do, 443-742 Korea, [email protected] Jae-Hwa Choi Dankook University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010 Recommended Citation Kim, Hak-Lae and Choi, Jae-Hwa, "Why Do Folksonomies Need Semantic Web Technologies?" (2010). AMCIS 2010 Proceedings. 68. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010/68 This material is brought to you by the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in AMCIS 2010 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kim, et al. Why Do Folksonomies Need Semantic Web Technologies? Why Do Folksonomies Need Semantic Web Technologies? Hak-Lae Kim Jae-Hwa Choi Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. College of Business 416, Maetan-3dong, Yeongtong-gu Dankook University Suwon-city, Gyeonggi-do, 443-742 San#29, Anseo-dong, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan-si, Korea Chungnam, 330-714, Korea [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper is to investigate some general features of social tagging and folksonomies along with their advantages and disadvantages, and to present an overview of a tag ontology that can be used to represent tagging data at a semantic level using Semantic Web technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata
    Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata Adam Mathes Computer Mediated Communication - LIS590CMC Graduate School of Library and Information Science University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign December 2004 Abstract This paper examines user-generated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital me- dia to better understand grassroots classification. Metadata - data about data - allows systems to collocate related information, and helps users find relevant information. The creation of metadata has generally been approached in two ways: professional creation and author creation. In li- braries and other organizations, creating metadata, primarily in the form of catalog records, has traditionally been the domain of dedicated profes- sionals working with complex, detailed rule sets and vocabularies. The primary problem with this approach is scalability and its impracticality for the vast amounts of content being produced and used, especially on the World Wide Web. The apparatus and tools built around professional cataloging systems are generally too complicated for anyone without spe- cialized training and knowledge. A second approach is for metadata to be created by authors. The movement towards creator described docu- ments was heralded by SGML, the WWW, and the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. There are problems with this approach as well - often due to inadequate or inaccurate description, or outright deception. This paper examines a third approach: user-created metadata, where users of the documents and media create metadata for their own individual use that is also shared throughout a community. 1 The Creation of Metadata: Professionals, Con- tent Creators, Users Metadata is often characterized as “data about data.” Metadata is information, often highly structured, about documents, books, articles, photographs, or other items that is designed to support specific functions.
    [Show full text]
  • XML Metadata Standards and Topic Maps Outline
    XML Metadata Standards and Topic Maps Erik Wilde 16.7.2001 XML Metadata Standards and Topic Maps 1 Outline what is XML? z a syntax (not a data model!) what is the data model behind XML? z XML Information Set (basically, trees...) what can be described with XML? z describing the content syntactically (schemas) z describing the content abstractly (metadata) XML metadata is outside of XML documents ISO Topic Maps z a "schema language" for meta data 16.7.2001 XML Metadata Standards and Topic Maps 2 1 Extensible Markup Language standardized by the W3C in February 1998 a subset (aka profile) of SGML (ISO 8879) coming from a document world z data are documents defined in syntax z no abstract data model problems in many real-world scenarios z how to compare XML documents z attribute order, white space, namespace prefixes, ... z how to search for data within documents z query languages operate on abstract data models z often data are not documents 16.7.2001 XML Metadata Standards and Topic Maps 3 Why XML at all? because it's simple z easily understandable, human-readable because of the available tools z it's easy to find (free) XML software because of improved interoperability z all others do it! z easy to interface with other XML applications because it's versatile z the data model behind XML is very versatile 16.7.2001 XML Metadata Standards and Topic Maps 4 2 XML Information Set several XML applications need a data model z style sheets for XML (CSS, XSL) z interfaces to programming languages (DOM) z XML transformation languages (XSLT) z XML
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Folksonomy of Tagging Information
    IRA-International Journal of Education & Multidisciplinary Studies ISSN 2455–2526; Vol.03, Issue 03 (2016) Institute of Research Advances http://research-advances.org/index.php/IJEMS Technical Folksonomy of Tagging Information Sonali Dapsi Librarian, Raja Peary Mohan College, India. Sudip Ranjan Hatua Asst Prof. Rabindra Bharati University, Kolkata, India. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21013/jems.v3.n3.p6 How to cite this paper: Dapsi, S., & Hatua, S. (2016). Technical Folksonomy of Tagging Information. IRA International Journal of Education and Multidisciplinary Studies (ISSN 2455–2526), 3(3). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.21013/jems.v3.n3.p6 © Institute of Research Advances This works is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License subject to proper citation to the publication source of the work. Disclaimer: The scholarly papers as reviewed and published by the Institute of Research Advances (IRA) are the views and opinions of their respective authors and are not the views or opinions of the IRA. The IRA disclaims of any harm or loss caused due to the published content to any party. 333 IRA-International Journal of Education & Multidisciplinary Studies ABSTRACT The Study of the various articles published in Library and Information Science Journals in the resent times shows that the keywords provided by the authors along with their articles are mostly uncontrolled. They are basically phrases. In spite of the knowledge of controlled vocabulary and various subject heading scheme they mostly are using natural word and sentences to represent the thought content of their research outcomes. This is generating new trends of representing subjects known as technical folksonomy.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology Vs. Folksonomy
    Ontology vs. Folksonomy Theodosia Togia 1 Comparison ONTOLOGY FOLKSONOMY designed by knowledge engineers collaboratively created by users laborious quick & easy requires expertise no expertise needed hard to implement on a large scale used on large-scale document collections controlled vocabulary no vocabulary control engineer's view of the world social aspect of meaning formal specification of knowledge domains informal metadata on documents structured unstructured (but structure emerges) not necessarily web-based typically web-based essential for the semantic web important in web 2.0 (social web) high expressive power low expressive power explicit meaning ambiguity synonyms, homonyms etc. can be clearly stated synonyms separated; homonyms conflated 2 Folksonomies • broad vs. narrow folksonomies • social vs. personal tagging (public vs. private tags) • tagging behaviour can give information about language and society • entry points to document collections: documents (their tags and users can be browsed), tags (their documents and users can be browsed), users (their tags and documents can be browsed) • not just typical information retrieval, but also resource discovery 1 3 Ontologies • facilitate interpersonal communication, human-computer interaction, inter-computer interaction • can be extended with new predicates (known as `concepts' or `classes' if they have 1 argument; `properties' or `relations' if they have at least 2 arguments) and axioms/rules. • How complex/expressive is an ontology? Depends on terminology. (usually frames, Description Logics, First-Order Logic; maybe higher- order logics too) • relations of equivalence (e.g. `equals', `hasOpposite'), hierarchy (e.g. `isA'/`isSubclassOf', `isPartOf', `isInstanceOf'), other associations (e.g. `hasColour') • decisions to be made: granularity, classes vs. instances 4 Competing or Complementary? Folksonomy and Ontology both: • broaden the spectrum of knowledge representation in different direc- tions.
    [Show full text]
  • Extending the Role of Metadata in a Digital Library System*
    Extending the Role of Metadata in a Digital Library System* Alexa T. McCray, Marie E. Gallagher, Michael A. Flannick National Library of Medicine Bethesda, MD, USA {mccray,gallagher,flannick}@nlm.nih.gov Abstract Metadata efforts often fall into the trap of We describe an approach to the development of a digital trying to create a universal metadata schema. library system that is founded on a number of basic Such efforts fail to recognize the basic nature principles. In particular, we discuss the critical role of of metadata: namely, that it is far too diverse metadata in all aspects of the system design. We begin by to fit into one useful taxonomy...the creation, describing how the notion of metadata is sometimes administration, and enhancement of individual interpreted and go on to discuss some of our early metadata forms should be left to the relevant experiences in a digital conversion project. We report on communities of expertise. Ideally this would the Profiles in Science project, which is making the occur within a framework that will support archival collections of prominent biomedical scientists interoperability across data and domains. available on the World Wide Web. We discuss the [4:277] principles that are used in our system design, illustrating Roszkowski and Lukas describe an approach for these throughout the discussion. Our approach has linking distributed collections of metadata so that they are involved interpreting metadata in its broadest sense. We searchable as a single collection [5], and Baldonado et al. capture data about the items in our digital collection for a describe an architecture that facilitates metadata a variety of purposes and use those data to drive the compatibility and interoperability [6].
    [Show full text]
  • Visualizing Social Indexing Semantics
    PREPRINT Visualizing Social Indexing Semantics Yusef Hassan-Montero1 and Víctor Herrero-Solana2 March 2007 1 SCImago Research Group. [email protected] 2 SCImago Research Group. [email protected] Abstract Social tagging is a distributed indexing process where web resources are described by means of tags – freely chosen keywords or labels – by their users. The aggregated result of social tagging is usually known as Folksonomy, an index where each resource is related to different tags by different users. This paper describes an approach to visualize both the overview and detail of semantic relationships intrinsic in the folksonomy. For this purpose, folksonomy is displayed as a network: tags are represented as nodes and semantic relationships as links between nodes. The semantic relationships are measured using the Jaccard coefficient, which determines the thickness of the link between tags. The bisecting K-mean algorithm is applied to cluster the tags, and the tags in the same cluster are displayed with the same colour. In order to ensure that the overview of social tagging is comprehensible, the Pathfinder Network Scaling algorithm is used to prune the network and only show the most significant links among tags. In addition, to get a better understanding of the local semantic relationships of a tag, an interactive procedure was applied to display some important links pruned by Pathfinder when the user moves mouse over a tag. The presented approach provides a means of knowledge acquisition and understanding of the socially constructed meaning of tags, as well as a means of visual information retrieval. Keywords Social Indexing, Pathfinder Networks, Clustering, Visual Information Retrieval Interfaces 1.
    [Show full text]