Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Related and Future Work
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Languages and Linguistics
Semantics

From Folksologies to Ontologies: How the Twain Meet

Profile image of Aldo de MoorAldo de Moor

2006

https://doi.org/10.1007/11914853_45
visibility

…

description

19 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Ontologies are instruments for capturing and using formal semantics, and are often the result of a ”central committee controlled” style of working. A new trend on the Web is the increasing popularity of folksologies in the form of social bookmarking sites. Folksologies provide informal semantics and can be created and adopted by anybody anytime anywhere on the Internet. Shared meaning in a folksology emerges through the use of tags that are used to bookmark web pages, their usage frequency being considered a reliable indicator of their usefulness and acceptance. Rather than choosing for either ontologies or folksologies, hybrid emergent semantics systems are needed that combine elements of both perspectives, depending on the particular application. There is a need to analyse the larger picture (including the full range of semantics’ functionalities in their context of use. In this paper, we outline a number of key design characteristics of emergent semantics systems (ESS). We examine the functionalities of two existing examples of well-known ESSs: del.icio.us and Piggy Bank. Using the results of this comparison, we introduce DogmaBank as a proof of concept implementation of a next-generation ESS that introduces a more advanced combination of lexical and conceptual emergent semantics functionalities.

Related papers

Representing and sharing folksonomies with semantics
John G Breslin

Journal of Information Science, 2010

Websites that provide content creation and sharing features have become quite popular recently. These sites allow users to categorize and browse content using 'tags' or free-text keyword topics. Since users contribute and tag social media content across a variety of social web platforms, creating new knowledge from distributed tag data has become a matter of performing various tasks, including publishing, aggregating, integrating, and republishing tag data. However, there are a number of issues in relation to data sharing and interoperability when processing tag data across heterogeneous tagging platforms. In this paper we introduce a semantic tag model that aims to explicitly offer the necessary structure, semantics and relationships between tags. This approach provides an improved opportunity for representing tag data in the form of reusable constructs at a semantic level. We also demonstrate a prototype that consumes and makes use of shared tag metadata across heterogeneous sources.

View PDFchevron_right
SOBOLEO-Social Bookmarking and Lighweight Engineering of Ontologies
Simone Braun

… of the Workshop on Social and Collaborative Construction of …, 2007

View PDFchevron_right
Where are the Concepts in the Folksonomy Model?
Juan Pane

Corporate portals make an important integral part of the enterprise infrastructure, facilitating the creation, sharing, discovery and consumption of enterprise assets through blogs, news, forums, documents and information in general. However, as the amount of data grows, it becomes much more difficult to access the right asset in the precise moment when it is needed. Annotation systems tried to address this problem to a certain extent by allowing the users to collaboratively annotate assets using tags such that these assets can be found more easily by reusing these tags in queries. However, this model often falls short due to mismatches in the vocabularies of different users, due to the use of synonymous, polysemous, more specific or general terms in tagging and searching, and so on. In this paper we: (a) provide an analysis of the corporate portal of the Telefonica group; (b) identify requirements for a semantics-enabled annotation system that is capable of addressing the above-men...

View PDFchevron_right
The Ontology of Tags
David J Saab

Social bookmarking sites such as Flickr, del.icio.us, and CiteULike have adopted folksonomic systems where users tag entities with keywords. These tagging systems replace traditional taxonomic systems that employ hierarchical categorization schemes. While there are some differences in how these tagging systems are constructed, e.g., as broad or narrow folksonomies, there has been confusion as to whether tagging constitutes a collaborative activity or a collective one. The distinction between collaborative and collective influences the theoretical assumptions upon which research is conducted. Researchers have adopted a semiotic theoretical perspective as an avenue for discerning emergent semantics of folksonomies. If tagging systems are to be useful to social media or semantic technologies, if we are to indeed discern the semantics emergent from folksonomies, then we need to understand the ontology of tags. This paper examines some of the fundamental ontological assumptions regarding tagging and folksonomies.

View PDFchevron_right
Semantics to the Bookmarks: A Review of Social Semantic Bookmarking Systems
Simone Braun

International Conference on …, 2009

View PDFchevron_right
Metadata Creation in Socio-semantic Tagging Systems: Towards Holistic Knowledge Creation and Interchange
Roy Lachica

Fuzzzy.com, a social bookmarking website has been developed to study collaborative creation of semantics. In a shared online space, users of Fuzzzy continuously create metadata bottom-up by categorizing (tagging) favourite hyperlinks (bookmarks). The semantic network of tags created by users evolves into a people's fuzzy common ontology ("folktology"). We discuss several social and cognitive aspects of Topic Maps technology and scalability by analyzing the use of the system. We further argue that holistic knowledge creation and interchange is highly needed. Our results from Fuzzzy suggest that this can be realized by connecting distributed knowledge centric communities of dedicated users within specific domains.

View PDFchevron_right
Emergent Ontologies by Collaborative Tagging for Knowledge Management
Weena Jimenez

Advancing Information Management through Semantic Web Concepts and Ontologies

The massive use of Internet and social networks leads us to a new dynamic environment with huge amounts of unstructured and unclassified information resources in continuous evolution. New classification, compilation, and recommendation systems based on the use of folksonomies and ontologies have appeared to deal with the requirements of data management in this environment. Nevertheless, using ontologies alone has some weaknesses due to the need of being statically modeled by a set of experts in a specific domain. On the other hand, folksonomies show a lack of formality because of their implicit ambiguity and flexibility by definition. The main objective of this chapter is to outline and evaluate a new way to exploit Web information resources and tags for bridging the gap between ontology modeling and folksonomies.

View PDFchevron_right
An Emergent Culture Model for Discerning Tag Semantics in Folksonomies
David J Saab

Social bookmarking sites as Flickr, del.icio.us, and CiteULike have incorporated the use of tags as way for users to retrieve photos, URLs, and citations in a way that is personally meaningful and which doesn't require learning taxonomies constructed by professionals. These tag sets, or folksonomies, have the potential to enhance interoperability among our information systems, especially those that use computational ontologies. Formal computational ontologies form the foundation for semantic interoperability, but seem to be insufficient in facilitating it because the ontologies developed for different information systems do not have an inherent mechanism for negotiating meaning or recognizing the natural evolution of a lexicon. Coupling folksonomies with formal ontologies holds potential for more productive semantic interoperability among systems. In order to reach that potential, we need to understand more clearly the process of discerning semantics in tag sets as entry points into the complex conceptual networks that generate meaning within cognition. This paper will explore that semantics involved in “emergent semantics” in tag sets and introduce an emergent culture model that will help clarify how folksonomies can be utilized in this endeavor.

View PDFchevron_right
Folksonomy with practical taxonomy, a design for social
Melanie van Olffen

2009

The Virtual Museum of the Pacific is a Digital Ecosystem that engages members of several communities, each with their own ontological relationships with the Pacific Collection of the Australian Museum. The Virtual Museum of the Pacific is intended to support on-line community interaction using social-media technologies to extend the annotation of objects to suit the stakeholder's own needs. The success of the system depends on leveraging the diffusion of language and encouraging a conversation between on-line communities. In this paper we explore the relationships between stakeholders, folksonomy and taxonomy, to reveal the design forces on our digital ecosystem. Our analysis defines the scope for the social tagging component that progresses the design of our data model and gives us some confidence that we are capturing the right data for the system's development into the future.

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic Emergence From Social Tagging Systems
Noura Aknin

International Journal of Organizational and Collective Intelligence, 2015

Recently, Social tagging systems (folksonomies) have become very popular platforms where content is created collaboratively by users. This kind of environments allows users to assign shared resources with freely chosen keywords (tags). Folksonomies provide a valuable addition to the knowledge organization methods since they allow users to choose vocabularies that meet their real tastes and cognition. However, the lacking of standardization and the flat structure of tags in folksonomies pose challenges for folksonomy searching and information retrieval. Several researches have been proposed to overcome these drawbacks. In this paper, the authors present, describe and compare the most relevant approaches to capturing hidden semantics in folksonomies and turning it into ontologies. The authors also present and describe many techniques, tools and online resources that can be useful in working on such systems. Finally, the authors propose an approach to extract ontology from social taggi...

View PDFchevron_right

References (57)

  1. Karl Aberer, Tiziana Catarci, and Philippe Cudré-Mauroux et al. Emergent semantics sys- tems. In M. Bouzeghoub, C. Goble, V. Kashyap, and S. Spaccapietra, editors, Semantics for Grid Databases, First International IFIP Conference on Semantics of a Networked World: ICSNW 2004, Revised Selected Papers, volume 3226 of LNCS, pages 14-43. Springer, 2004.
  2. Karl Aberer, Philippe Cudré-Mauroux, and Manfred Hauswirth. A framework for semantic gossiping. SIGMOD Record Special Issue, 31(4):48 -53, 2002.
  3. C. Batini, M. Lenzerini, and S. Navathe. A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Computing Surveys, 18(4):323-364, 1986.
  4. C. Behrens and V. Kashyap. The "Emergent" Semantic Web: A consensus approach for deriving Semantic Knowledge on the Web. Real World Semantic Web Applications. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol 92, IOS Press, 2002.
  5. T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. The semantic web. Scientific American, 284(5):34-43, 2001.
  6. Andrew Burton-Jones, Veda Storey, and Vijayan Sugumaran. A semiotic metrics suite for assessing the quality of ontologies. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 55(1):84 -102, 2005.
  7. S. Buvac. Resolving lexical ambiguity using a formal theory of context. In Van Deemter and Peters, editors, Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. CSLI Publications, 1996.
  8. Philippe Cudré-Mauroux and Karl Aberer et al. Viewpoints on emergent semantics. Journal of Data Semantics, 2880. to appear.
  9. P. De Leenheer and R. Meersman. Towards a formal foundation of DOGMA ontology Part I: Lexon base and concept definition server. Technical Report STAR-2005-06, STAR Lab, Brussel, 2005.
  10. Aldo de Moor. Patterns for the pragmatic web. In Proc. of the 13th International Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS 2005), volume 3596 of LNAI, pages 1-18. Springer, 2005.
  11. Aldo de Moor, Pieter De Leenheer, and Robert Meersman. DOGMA-MESS: A meaning evolution support system for interorganizational ontology engineering. In Proc. of the 14th International Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS 2006), LNCS. Springer, 2006.
  12. L. Ding, T. Finin, A. Joshi, Y. Peng, R. Scott Cost, J. Sachs, R. Pan R, P. Reddivari, and V. Doshi. Swoogle: A semantic web search and metadata engine. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 2004.
  13. J. Euzenat, T. Le Bach, J. Barrasa, P. Bouquet, and J. De Bo et al. State of the art on ontology alignment. Knowledge Web Deliverable #D2.2.3, INRIA, Saint Ismier, 2004.
  14. James Farrugia. Model-theoretic semantics for the web. In Proceedings of the WWW2003 Conference, pages 277 -287, 2003. http://www2003.org/cdrom/.
  15. F. Giunchiglia and M. Yatskevich. Efficient semantic matching. In Gomez perez A. and Euzenat J., editors, Proceedings of the 2nd European semantic web conference (ESWC'05), volume 3532 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2005.
  16. Asunción Gómez-Pérez, Mariano Fernández-López, and Oscar Corcho. Ontological Engi- neering. Springer Verlag, 2004.
  17. W. Grosky, D. Sreenath, and F. Fotouhi. Emergent semantics and the multimedia semantic web. SIGMOD Record Special Issue, 31(4):54 -58, 2002.
  18. T. R. Gruber. A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 6(2):199-221, 1993.
  19. Tom Gruber. Ontology of folksonomy: A mash-up of apples and oranges. In First On-line Conference on Meta-Data and Semantics Research (MTSR05), 2005. http://tomgruber.org/.
  20. N. Guarino and P. Giaretta. Ontologies and knowledge bases: Towards a terminological clarification. In N. Mars, editor, Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases: Knowledge Building and Knowledge Sharing, pages 25 -32, Amsterdam, 1995. IOS Press.
  21. N. Guarino, C. Masolo, and G. Vetere. Ontoseek: Content-based access to the web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, May-June4-5:70-80, 1999.
  22. Nicola Guarino. Formal ontologies and information systems. In Nicola Guarino, editor, Proceedings of FOIS '98, pages 3 -15. IOS Press, 1998.
  23. Terry Halpin. Information Modeling and Relational Databases. Academic Press, 2001.
  24. Jens Hartmann, Peter Spyns, Diane Maynard, Roberta Cuel, Mari Carmen Suarez de Figueroa, and York Sure. Methods for ontology evaluation. KnowledgeWeb Deliverable #D1.2.3, 2005.
  25. Dion Hinchcliffe. 10 issues facing web2.0 today. http://web2.wsj2.com/10_issues_facing_web_20_going_into_2006.htm#, 2005.
  26. Andreas Hotho, Robert Jäschke, Christoph Schmitz, and Gerd Stumme. Information retrieval in folksonomies: Search and ranking. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Semantic Web Conference, LNCS. Springer, 2006.
  27. David Huynh, Stefano Mazzocchi, and David Karger. Piggy bank: Experience the seman- tic web inside your web browser. In Proceedings of the third International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC05), LNCS. Springer Verlag, 2005.
  28. M. Jarke, M. Lenzerini, Y. Vassiliou, and Y. Vassiliadis. Fundamentals of Data Warehouses. Springer-Verlag, 1999.
  29. M. Jarrar and R. Meersman. Formal ontology engineering in the dogma approach. In R. Meersman, Z. Tari, and al., editors, On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2002: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE, volume 2519 of LNCS, pages 1238 -1254. Springer, 2002.
  30. H. Lausen, Y. Ding, M. Stollberg, D. Fensel, R. Lara, , and S.K. Han. Semantic web portals: state-of-the-art survey. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(5), 2005.
  31. Ben Lund, Tony Hammond Martin Flack, and Timo Hannay. Social book- marking tools (ii): a case study -Connotea. D-Lib Magazine, 11(4), 2005. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april05/lund/04lund.html.
  32. A. Maedche, S. Staab, R. Studer, Y. Sure, and R. Volz. SEAL -tying up information integra- tion and web site management by ontologies. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 25(1):10-17, March 2002.
  33. Ana Maguitman, Filippo Menczer, Heather Roinestad, and Alessandro Vespignani. Algo- rithmic detection of semantic similarity. In Proc. of the WWW2005 Conference. ACM, 2005. 34. Adam Mathes. Folksonomies: Cooperative classification and communication through shared metadata. http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated- communication/folksonomies.html, 2004.
  34. Diane Maynard. Benchmarking ontology-based annotation tools for the semantic web. In UK e-Science Programme All Hands Meeting (AHM2005) Workshop Text Mining, e-Research and Grid-enabled Language Technology, 2005.
  35. Stefano Mazzocchi. Folksologies: de-idealizing ontologies. Blog http://www.betaversion.org/˜stefano/linotype/news/85/, 2005.
  36. Deborah McGuinness. Question answering on the semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, (january/february):82 -85, 2004.
  37. R. Meersman. Semantic web and ontologies: Playtime or business at the last frontier in computing ? In NSF-EU Workshop on Database and Information Systems Research for Semantic Web and Enterprises, pages 61 -67. NSF-EU, 2002.
  38. Robert Meersman. The use of lexicons and other computer-linguistic tools in semantics, design and cooperation of database systems. In Y. Zhang, M. Rusinkiewicz, and Y. Kam- bayashi, editors, The Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Cooperative Database Systems for Advanced Applications (CODAS99), pages 1-14. Springer, 1999.
  39. Peter Merholz. Metadata for the masses. http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/ archives/000361.php, 2004.
  40. Peter Merholz. Clay Shirky's viewpoints are overrated. http://www.peterme.com/archives/000558.html, 2005.
  41. P. Mika. Ontologies are us: A unified model of social networks and semantics. In Proc. of the 4th Internat. Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC05), LNCS, pages 522-536. Springer, 2005.
  42. S. Nirenburg and V. Raskin. Ontological semantics, formal ontology, and ambiguity. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, pages 151 -161. ACM Press, 2001.
  43. Daniel Oberle and Peter Spyns. Handbook on Ontologies, chapter OntoWeb -Knowledge Portal, pages 499 -516. International Handbooks on Information Systems. Springer, 2004.
  44. C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Lan- guage upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., Lon- don, 10 edition, 1923.
  45. Borislav Popov, Atanas Kiryakov, Damyan Ognyanoff, Dimitar Manov, and Angel Kirilov. KIM -a semantic platform for information extaction and retrieval. Journal of Natural Lan- guage Engineering, 10(3-4):375 -392, 2004.
  46. Mareike Schoop, Aldo de Moor, and Jan Dietz. The pragmatic web: a manifesto. Commun. ACM, 49(5):75-76, 2006.
  47. Amit P. Sheth, Cartic Ramakrishnan, and Christopher Thomas. Semantics for the Semantic Web: "The Implicit, the Formal and the Powerful". International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 1(1): 1-18, 2005.
  48. Clay Shirky. The semantic web, syllogism, and worldview. http://www.shirky.com, 2003.
  49. Clay Shirky. Ontology is overrated: Categories, links and tags. http://www.shirky.com, 2005.
  50. Peter Spyns, Robert Meersman, and Mustafa Jarrar. Data modelling versus ontology engi- neering. SIGMOD Record Special Issue, 31 (4): 12 -17, 2002.
  51. P. Spyns, D. Oberle, R. Volz, J. Zheng, M. Jarrar, Y. Sure, R. Studer, and R. Meersman. Ontoweb -a semantic web community portal. In D. Karagiannis and U. Reimer, editors, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Practical Aspects of Knowledge Man- agement (PAKM02), volume 2569 of LNAI, pages 189-200. Springer Verlag, 2002.
  52. Peter Spyns and Robert Meersman. From knowledge to interaction: from the semantic to the pragmatic web. Technical Report 05, STAR Lab, Brussel, 2003.
  53. P. Spyns and J. De Bo. Ontologies: a revamped cross-disciplinary buzzword or a truly promis- ing interdisciplinary research topic? Linguistica Antverpiensia NS, (3):279-92, 2004.
  54. P. Spyns and M.-L. Reinberger. Lexically evaluating ontology triples automatically generated from text. In A. Gómez-Pérez and J. Euzenat, editors, Proceedings of the second European Semantic Web Conference, volume 3532 of LNCS, pages 563 -577. Springer Verlag, 2005.
  55. Peter Spyns. Object Role Modelling for Ontology Engineering in the DOGMA framework. in R. Meersman and Z. Tari and P. Herrero et al. On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2005: OTM 2005 Workshops, volume 3762 of LNCS, pages 710 -719. Springer Verlag, 2005.
  56. M. Uschold and M. Gruninger. Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications. Knowledge Sharing and Review, 11(2), June 1996.
  57. M. Ushold and M. Gruninger. Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications. The Knowl- edge Engineering Review, 11(2):93 -155, 1996.

Related papers

Emergent Semantics from Folksonomies: A Quantitative Study
Yong Yu

Journal on Data Semantics, 2006

Defining and using ontology to annotate web resources with semantic markups is generally perceived as the primary way to implement the vision of the Semantic Web. The ontology provides a shared and machine understandable semantics for web resources that agents and applications can utilize. This top-down approach (in the sense that an ontology is defined first on top of existing web resources and then used later to markup them), however, has a high barrier to entry and is difficult to scale up. In this paper, we investigate using a bottom-up approach for semantically annotating web resources as supported by the now widely popular social bookmarks services on the web where users can annotate and categorize web resources using “tags” freely choosen by the user without any pre-existing global semantic model. This kind of informal social categories is coined as “folksonomies”. We show how global semantics can be statistically inferred from the folksonomies to semantically annotate the web resources. The global semantic model also disambiguate the tags and group synonymous tags together. Finally, we show that there indeed are hierarchical relations among the emerged concepts in the folksonomy and it is plausible to further identify them if we use more advanced probabilistic models.

View PDFchevron_right
International Workshop on Emergent Semantics and Ontology Evolution
Philippe Cudre-Mauroux

2007

The Semantic Web and collaborative tagging are two complementary approaches aiming at making information search, retrieval, navigation and knowledge discovery easier. While the Semantic Web enforces semantics top-down via the use of ontologies, collaborative tagging tries to obtain semantics in a bottom-up fashion. Del. icio. us and flickr are success stories of collaborative tagging; the winners of the Semantic Web Challenge demonstrate the success of the Semantic Web. Still, both approaches face open issues.

View PDFchevron_right
Ontology of Folksonomy: A New Modelling Method
José Javier Astrain

2007

Ontologies and tagging systems are two different ways to organize the knowledge present in Web. The first one has a formal fundamental that derives from descriptive logic and artificial intelligence. The other one is simpler and it integrates heterogeneous contents, and it is based on the collaboration of users in the Web 2.0. In this paper we propose a method to model tagging systems like folksonomies using ontologies. In our proposal, structured information (ontologies) can be extracted from knowledge built in a simple and collaborative way (folksonomies). Furthermore, we provide an analytical expression to evaluate the system requirements to store the derived ontology.

View PDFchevron_right
folk2onto: Bridging the gap between social tags and ontologies
Diego López-de-Ipiña

Proc. of the 1st …, 2008

Ontologies are a useful and attractive tool for classifying documents and, in general, all types of resources. In fact, if all the documents in the web were classified according to a set of standard ontologies, the job of search engines, automatic document processors, etc. would be much easier. However, ontologies are too complex to be used by the general public and, so far, are used only by specialized users. Nonetheless, a more informal type of classifying resources is becoming increasingly popular amongst the general public: social tagging or folksonomies. Many popular websites (del.icio.us, Flickr, Technorati . . .) allow users to participate by annotating web content using social tags. Although they provide an easy way to collaboratively create knowledge, these tags are difficult to machine-process. In this paper, we propose bridging the gap between folksonomies and ontologies so that that the information in social tagging systems will be made easier to process. To that effect, we present the design and implementation of a software application, folk2onto, that can be trained to map social tags into an ontology.

View PDFchevron_right
Ontology of Folksonomy: A New Modeling Method
José Javier Astrain

Ontologies and tagging systems are two different ways to organize the knowledge present in Web. The first one has a formal fundamental that derives from descriptive logic and artificial intelligence. The other one is simpler and it integrates heterogeneous contents, and it is based on the collaboration of users in the Web 2.0. In this paper we propose a method to model tagging systems like folksonomies using ontologies. In our proposal, structured information (ontologies) can be extracted from knowledge built in a simple and collaborative way (folksonomies). Furthermore, we provide an analytical expression to evaluate the system requirements to store the derived ontology.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Formal Semantics
  • Context of Use
  • Emergent Semantics

    • Cited by

    Exploiting semantic web techniques for representing and utilising Folksonomies
    Owen Sacco

    Proceedings of the International Workshop on Modeling Social Media - MSM '10, 2010

    In this paper, an ontology is proposed to represent hierarchical structure of tags unfolded using the "fast unfolding of communities in large networks" algorithm. This paper also proposes a semantic state of the art application to transform communities of tags computed by this algorithm into a semantic format in light of enhancing search and exploration for Web content.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Comparing the hierarchy of author given tags and repository given tags in a large document archive
    Gergely Palla

    The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 2016

    Folksonomies -large databases arising from collaborative tagging of items by independent users -are becoming an increasingly important way of categorizing information. In these systems users can tag items with free words, resulting in a tripartite item-tag-user network. Although there are no prescribed relations between tags, the way users think about the different categories presumably has some built in hierarchy, in which more special concepts are descendants of some more general categories. Several applications would benefit from the knowledge of this hierarchy. Here we apply a recent method to check the differences and similarities of hierarchies resulting from tags given by independent individuals and from tags given by a centrally managed repository system. The results from our method showed substantial differences between the lower part of the hierarchies, and in contrast, a relatively high similarity at the top of the hierarchies.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved