DOCSLIB.ORG

Why Do Folksonomies Need Semantic Web Technologies? Hak-Lae Kim Samsung Electronics Co., LTD

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Several tag ontologies have been developed with a specific purpose and used in various websites. However, in order to represent tagging data at semantic level existing tag ontologies need to be interlinked, since individual tag ontology cannot represent overall features of tagging activities. After introducing conceptual overview of tagging and folksonomies and tag ontologies, we will propose the combinational model for linking tag ontologies. Keywords Folksonomies, Semantic Web, Ontology, Tag Ontology. INTRODUCTION The idea of tagging is simple: people are tagging the content they create in public spaces with free-text keywords, and the collection of many people’s keywords can serve as useful metadata when aggregated (Gruber, 2007). Based on this principle, a growing number of tagging applications have begun to provide users with the ability to connect to other users via their own keywords. Tagging plays an important role in the emergence and production of an incredible amount of distributed information by communicating, collaborating, and sharing tagged resources amongst users. With this new phenomena, classification on the Web is now changing in that online resources can easily be classified in many different categories beyond the types we encounter in the physical world (Weinberger, 2005). The results of tagging are emerging as collective semantics created through active user participation. The increasing interest in tagging leads to new challenges in order to improve the findability of resources and connectivity between people. Although tagging is an evolving and “bottom-up” approach based on users’ contributions, representing the social connectivity between the entities that make up tagging activities has to be discovered and improved. For instance, detractors of tagging refer to a lack of precision and low findability as major limitations which prevent the sharing of tagging data (Mathes, 2004). We believe that we can leverage this new model of tagging content on the Socal Web by combining it with alternative but complementary technologies such as the Semantic Web. The objectives of this research are to 1) explore overall features of tagging and folksonomies, including definitions, advantages and disadvantages, 2) propose a combinational model based on tag ontologies to make tagging data unambiguous and to be shared tagging activities across heterogeneous sources. The contributions can be summarised: 1) identify the differences between folksonomies and ontologies, 2) address the reasons that folksonomies can be represented by ontologies, 3) propose a combinational model by interlinking existing tag ontologies in order to represent tagging data at a semantic model. In the following sections, we will begin by clarifying the various concepts and terminologies related to tagging, and then we will discuss the distinct roles that are present in tagging processes. SOCIAL TAGGING CONCEPTS Definition A tag is a metadata keyword or a labeled term associated with a resource such as a link, web page, picture, or blog post, etc. Previously, research literature on tagging dealt primarily with online resources such as blog posts (Mathes, 2004; Proceedings of the Sixteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Lima, Peru, August 12-15, 2010. 1 Kim, et al. Why Do Folksonomies Need Semantic Web Technologies? Merholz, 2004; Mejias, 2005; Kroski, 2005; Vander Wal, 2005). Tags are in general chosen by people (e.g. the content creator or author, a consumer or reader, etc.), and are based on their understanding of a resource according to their own perceived utility, where they are not chosen from existing controlled vocabularies or strict taxonomies (Mathes, 2004). The idea of tags is that they reflect the end user’s thoughts or intentions by using informal personally preferred terms. While users who create tags do not necessarily have to be experts, the terms as keywords, categories, or classifications for the resource hold an intended meaning for the users (Golder and Huberman, 2006). Once tags are assigned to a resource, different users or applications can use and share them in several ways. In this sense, tags can be seen as a simple way to allow users to interact with a site or a service based on a richer experience and a sense of participation (Mathes, 2004; Kroski, 2005). Figure 1 Tagging model: People tag a specific resource (e.g. a photo) with term(s). Tagging is the overall activity of contributing to a collection of tags by users. As shown Figure 1, tagging requires people to participate in tagging activities for their own specific reasons and thus the entity of this process includes users, tags, and resources as well as their relationships. In this perspective, the tagging process goes with an implicit agreement of sharing tagging entities amongst users, rather than being just a process of sharing resources. A folksonomy is a type of distributed classification system and is formed from a collection of keywords created by users. This can be defined as a social, shared categorisation system influenced and consumed by or across users, reflecting varied perspectives in a collaborative and decentralised way (Golder and Huberman, 2006; Marlow et al., 2006; Halpin and Shepherd, 2007). Thomas Vander Wal, the person who coined the term, emphasises “user-generated classification, emerging through bottom-up consensus” (Vander Wal, 2005). He asserts that a folksonomy, as a fusion of the words ‘folk’ and ‘taxonomy’, is composed of three important components - the tags themselves, the resources that are being tagged, and the users that create these tags. A real large-scale application of folksonomy usage appeared with Delicious in late 2003, and this was subsequently adopted by various other social software sites. According to Vander Wal (2005), folksonomies are distinguished by two typologies: broad and narrow folksonomies. The former refers to where many people are describing the same object with their tags in a system such as Delicious. In a tagging space, everyone can tag an object according to their interests, even if the methods of tagging used among them is different. Thus, the power law of tagging behaviours observes that most tags appear only once or rarely in a small groups or few users, whereas a few popular tags are often used by many users (Quintarelli, 2005). Broad folksonomies, following a variety of levels of user participation, are a way of investigating the benefit of the network effect and other trends in tagging. In contrast to broad ones, narrow folksonomies mean that a small number of users will tag individual objects (e.g. as is the case with Flickr). At present, tagging on a large number of social software sites has become quite popular, and tagging in traditional web sites (e.g. message boards) is being adopted at a steady pace. Some well-known implementations of folksonomies are Delicious and Flickr. The former is a social bookmarking system where users tag and store web links, which they want to find again in the future, while the latter is a photo-sharing web site where users upload and tag their own photos to aid Proceedings of the Sixteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Lima, Peru, August 12-15, 2010. 2 Kim, et al. Why Do Folksonomies Need Semantic Web Technologies? retrieval by themselves and others. CiteULike 1, using a similar approach to Delicious, focuses on academic articles, and there are number of multimedia sites that support tagging such as Last.fm 2 for music and YouTube 3 for videos. From an information visualisation perspective, tag clouds are the most popular visual interface to represent multiple tags and for navigating resources. Typically tags displayed in a tag cloud on most sites are differentiated by size, font or color depending on how many times the tag has been used or how many resources have been assigned with that tag (Hayman, 2007). Social Tagging and Its Terminologies In any emerging field, a new phenomenon will have a corresponding set of new terms that describe it or are related to it, and there are numerous definitions for the tagging phenomenon as a method of categorising information. The term folksonomy is emerging as the dominant term: there is however a lack of clarity when talking about tagging and folksonomies, as these terms are often used interchangeably to describe the same phenomenon.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The World Wide Web: Not So World Wide After All?, 16 Pub
    Public Interest Law Reporter Volume 16 Article 8 Issue 1 Fall 2010 2010 The orW ld Wide Web: Not So World Wide After All? Allison Lockhart Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/pilr Part of the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation Allison Lockhart, The World Wide Web: Not So World Wide After All?, 16 Pub. Interest L. Rptr. 47 (2010). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/pilr/vol16/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public Interest Law Reporter by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lockhart: The World Wide Web: Not So World Wide After All? No. 1 • Fall 2010 THE WORLD WIDE WEB: NOT SO WORLD WIDE AFTER ALL? by ALLISON LOCKHART It’s hard to imagine not having twenty-four hour access to videos of dancing Icats or Ashton Kutcher’s hourly musings, but this is the reality in many countries. In an attempt to control what some governments perceive as a law- less medium, China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, and a growing number of other countries have begun censoring content on the Internet.1 The most common form of censorship involves blocking access to certain web- sites, but the governments in these countries also employ companies to prevent search results from listing what they deem inappropriate.2 Other governments have successfully censored material on the Internet by simply invoking in the minds of its citizens a fear of punishment or ridicule that encourages self- censoring.3 47 Published by LAW eCommons, 2010 1 Public Interest Law Reporter, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Role of Librarian in Internet and World Wide Web Environment K
    Informing Science Information Sciences Volume 4 No 1, 2001 Role of Librarian in Internet and World Wide Web Environment K. Nageswara Rao and KH Babu Defence Research & Development Laboratory Kanchanbagh Post, India [email protected] and [email protected] Abstract The transition of traditional library collections to digital or virtual collections presented the librarian with new opportunities. The Internet, Web en- vironment and associated sophisticated tools have given the librarian a new dynamic role to play and serve the new information based society in bet- ter ways than hitherto. Because of the powerful features of Web i.e. distributed, heterogeneous, collaborative, multimedia, multi-protocol, hyperme- dia-oriented architecture, World Wide Web has revolutionized the way people access information, and has opened up new possibilities in areas such as digital libraries, virtual libraries, scientific information retrieval and dissemination. Not only the world is becoming interconnected, but also the use of Internet and Web has changed the fundamental roles, paradigms, and organizational culture of libraries and librarians as well. The article describes the limitless scope of Internet and Web, the existence of the librarian in the changing environment, parallelism between information sci- ence and information technology, librarians and intelligent agents, working of intelligent agents, strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities in- volved in the relationship between librarians and the Web. The role of librarian in Internet and Web environment especially as intermediary, facilita- tor, end-user trainer, Web site builder, researcher, interface designer, knowledge manager and sifter of information resources is also described. Keywords: Role of Librarian, Internet, World Wide Web, Data Mining, Meta Data, Latent Semantic Indexing, Intelligent Agents, Search Intermediary, Facilitator, End-User Trainer, Web Site Builder, Researcher, Interface Designer, Knowledge Man- ager, Sifter.
    [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]
  • Chapter 2 the Internet & World Wide
    Chapter 2 The Internet & World Wide Web 1 OBJECTIVES OVERVIEW Explain the purpose Identify and briefly Describe the types of of a Web browser and describe various Internet access identify the broadband Internet providers components of a Web connections address Describe how to use a search engine to Describe the types of search for Web sites information on the Web 2 OBJECTIVES OVERVIEW Recognize how Web pages use graphics, Identify the steps animation, audio, video, required for Web virtual reality, and plug- publishing ins Explain how e-mail, mailing lists, instant messaging, chat rooms, Identify the rules of VoIP, FTP, and netiquette newsgroups and message boards work 3 THE INTERNET The Internet is a worldwide collection of networks that links millions of businesses, government agencies, educational institutions, and individuals 4 THE INTERNET The Internet originated as ARPANET in September 1969 and had two main goals: Allow scientists at Function even if part different physical of the network were locations to share disabled or destroyed information and work by a disaster together 5 THE INTERNET 1986 NSF connects NSFnet to 1969 ARPANET and ARPANET becomes 1996 becomes known as the Internet2 is functional Internet founded 1984 1995 NSFNet Today More ARPANET has terminates its than 550 more than network on million hosts 1,000 the Internet connect to individual and resumes the Internet computers status as linked as research hosts network 6 THE INTERNET Many home and small business users connect to the Internet via high-speed broadband
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to the World Wide Web - Debora Donato
    COMPLEX NETWORKS - An Introduction to the World Wide Web - Debora Donato AN INTRODUCTION TO THE WORLD WIDE WEB Debora Donato Yahoo! Labs, Sunnyvale, California Keywords: WWW, Web Graph, Power law properties, microscopic structure, macroscopic structure. Contents 1. Introduction 2. Microscopic properties 2.1 Power Law Distribution and Scale-Free Networks 2.2 Degree Distribution 3. Link Analysis Ranking Algorithms 3.1. PageRank 3.2. Hits 4. Macroscopic properties 5. The fine-grained structure of the Web graph 6. Dynamic characterization of the Web graph 6.1. The Evolution of the Host-Graph 6.2. Clustering Evolution Patterns 6.3. Correlation among Neighbors Acknowledgement Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary The Web is one of the most complex artifacts ever conceived by human beings. Its considerable dimensions are due to tools that have minimized the users' effort for content publishing. This characteristic is at the basis of a social phenomenon that has engendered the progressive migration of a good portion of the human activities toward the Web. The Web is the location where people meet, chat, get information, share opinions, transact, work or have fun. UNESCO – EOLSS The key feature that has attracted the interest of scientists with different background is that, despite being the sum of decentralized and uncoordinated efforts by heterogeneous groups and individuals,SAMPLE the World Wide WebCHAPTERS exhibits a well defined structure, characterized by several interesting properties. This structure was clearly revealed by the study of Broder et al.(2000) who presented the evocative bow-tie picture of the Web. Although, the bow-tie structure is a relatively clear abstraction of the macroscopic picture of the Web, it is quite uninformative with respect to the finer details of the Web graph.
    [Show full text]
  • Demery V. Arpaio
    378 F.3d 1020 (2004) Jamie DEMERY; Samantha Moore; Aracelia Leticia Pfeifer; Janet Lee King; Jerri Cabaniss; Rosa Velazquez; Cynthia Matthers; Rhonda Farmer; Sandra Puebla; Jordan Martin; Laura Hartney; Elena M. Irvine; Yvette Rose Leon; Tina Marie Sox; Loretta Christie; Alison Lee Adair; Victoria Zepeda; Nikisha Calliste; Terry McEvoy; Tom Odenkirk; Dean Tousignant; Benny David Berryman; Damon Scoggin; Sean Botkin, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Joe ARPAIO, Maricopa County Sheriff, in his official capacity, Defendant-Appellant, and County of Maricopa; John/Jane Does 1-100, Defendants. No. 03-15698. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted December 3, 2003. Filed August 6, 2004. 102110221023 *1021 *1022 *1023 Daniel P. Struck, Phoenix, AZ, for the defendant-appellant. Scott A. Ambrose, Phoenix, AZ, Ulises A. Ferragut, Jr., Ferragut & Associates, Phoenix, AZ, for the plaintiffs- appellees. Before PAEZ, BERZON, and BEA, Circuit Judges. PAEZ, Circuit Judge. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits punishment of pretrial detainees. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). Applying this principle, the district court preliminarily enjoined the use of world-wide web cameras ("webcams") in the Maricopa County Madison Street Jail. We must decide whether the district court abused its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 1024 *1024 I. When Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced the installation of webcams in the Madison Street Jail, he proclaimed "[w]e get people booked in for murder all the way down to prostitution.... When those johns are arrested, they can wave to their wives on the camera." Sheriff Arpaio also explained that his policy deterred crime and opened up the jails to public scrutiny: "The public has the right to know what's going on in our jails...
    [Show full text]
  • Cyberdissent: the Internet in Revolutionary Iran
    Volume 7, No. 3 - September 2003 CYBERDISSENT: THE INTERNET IN REVOLUTIONARY IRAN By Babak Rahimi This paper argues that the internet, as an advancing new means of communication, has played an important role in the ongoing struggle for democracy in Iran. While outlining its history in Iran amidst an ambiguous state response to its rapid development since 1993, the paper also attempts to show how the internet has opened a new virtual space for political dissent. The paper claims that the internet is an innovative method for resistance in that it essentially defies control and supervision of speech by authoritarian rule seeking to undermine resistance. The contemporary history of the struggle for democracy is replete with examples of how information and communication technologies (ICTs), such as the internet, have assisted political dissent movements to undermine authoritarian regimes around the globe.(1) In Pakistan, recent measures by the government to curtail access to websites continue to meet tough resistance from Pakistani internet users.(2) Most interestingly, in Zimbabwe the democratic opposition has resisted Robert Mugabe’s regime and its monopoly of information sources in rural regions by e- mailing daily news bulletins to other rural sites, where they are printed and distributed by children on bikes. Throughout the world, the world wide web and e-mail have consistently proven themselves as powerful means of communication to oppose autocratic rule.(3) The democratic threat posed to authoritarian regimes by the internet is obvious: cyberspace is a powerful medium of interaction that defies any form of strict supervision. As former U.S. President Bill Clinton has said, the effort of these regimes to control the internet is reminiscent of an attempt to nail Jell-o to a wall.(4) The case of Iran provides an interesting example of the democratic potential of the internet.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Chapter 8: the Internet and the World Wide Web
    15th Edition Understanding Computers Today and Tomorrow Comprehensive Chapter 8: The Internet and the World Wide Web Deborah Morley Charles S. Parker Copyright 2015 Cengage Learning Learning Objectives 1. Discuss how the Internet evolved and what it is like today. 2. Identify the various types of individuals, companies, and organizations involved in the Internet community and explain their purposes. 3. Describe device and connection options for connecting to the Internet, as well as some considerations to keep in mind when selecting an ISP. 4. Understand how to search effectively for information on the Internet and how to cite Internet resources properly. Understanding Computers: Today and Tomorrow, 15th Edition 2 Learning Objectives 5. List several ways to communicate over the Internet, in addition to e-mail. 6. List several useful activities that can be performed via the Web. 7. Discuss censorship and privacy and how they are related to Internet use. Understanding Computers: Today and Tomorrow, 15th Edition 3 Overview • This chapter covers: – The evolution of the Internet – The Internet community – Different options for connecting to the Internet – Internet searching – Common applications available via the Internet – Societal issues that apply to Internet use Understanding Computers: Today and Tomorrow, 15th Edition 4 Evolution of the Internet • Internet – Largest and most well-known computer network, linking millions of computers all over the world – The Internet has actually operated in one form or another for several decades • ARPANET
    [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]