ABSTRACT
As the popularity of the web increases, particularly the use of social networking sites and style sharing platforms, users are becoming increasingly connected, sharing more and more information, resources, and opinions. This vast array of information presents unique opportunities to harvest knowledge about user activities and interests through the exploitation of large-scale, complex systems. Communal tagging sites, and their respective folksonomies, are one example of such a complex system, providing huge amounts of information about users, spanning multiple domains of interest. However, the current Web infrastructure provides no mechanism for users to consolidate and exploit this information since it is spread over many desperate and unconnected resources. In this paper we compare user tag-clouds from multiple folksonomies to: (a) show how they tend to overlap, regardless of the focus of the folksonomy (b) demonstrate how this comparison helps finding and aligning the user's separate identities, and (c) show that cross-linking distributed user tag-clouds enriches users profiles. During this process, we find that significant user interests are often reflected in multiple Web2.0 profiles, even though they may operate over different domains. However, due to the free-form nature of tagging, some correlations are lost, a problem we address through the implementation and evaluation of a user tag filtering architecture.
- G. Begelman, P. Keller, and F. Smadja. Automated tag clustering: Improving search and exploration in the tag space. In collaborative Web Tagging Workshop at WWW2006, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2006.Google Scholar
- T. Berners-Lee. Giant global graph, November 2007. http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/215Google Scholar
- C. Cattuto. Semiotic dynamics in online social communities. The European Physical Journal C - Particles and Fields, (Volume 46, Supplement 2 / August, 2006):33--37, August 2006.Google Scholar
- C. Cattuto, A. Baldassarri, V. D. P. Servedio, and V. Loreto. Emergent community structure in social tagging systems. In Proceedings of the European Confeence on Complex Systems, Dresden, Germany, October 2007.Google Scholar
- T. Coates. Two cultures of fauxonomies collide, Jun 2005. http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2005/06/two_cultures_of_fauxonomies_collide/Google Scholar
- C. Fellbaum, editor. WordNet: an electronic lexical database. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1998. p.423.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. A. Golder and B. A. Huberman. The structure of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2):198--208, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Halpin, V. Robu, and H. Shepherd. The complex dynamics of collaborative tagging. In WWW '07: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 211--220, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Hammond, T. Hannay, B. Lund, and J. Scott. Social bookmarking tools (i): A general review. D-Lib Magazine, 11, Apr 2005. 10.1045/april2005-hammond.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Iturrioz, O. Diaz, and C. Arellano. Towards federated web2.0 sites: The tagmas approach. In Tagging and Metadata for Social Information Organization Workshop, WWW07, 2007.Google Scholar
- T. Knerr. Tagging ontology - towards a common ontology for folksonomies, 2007. http://tagont.googlecode.com/files/TagOntPaper.pdfGoogle Scholar
- C. Marlow, M. Naaman, D. Boyd, and M. Davis. Ht06, tagging paper, taxonomy, flickr, academic article, to read. In HYPERTEXT '06: Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, pages 31--40, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Mathes. Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata, December 2004.Google Scholar
- Ofcom. Social networking: A quantative and qualitative research report into attitudes, behaviours, and use. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/1shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_04_08_ofcom.pdfGoogle Scholar
- E. Prud'hommeaux and A. Seaborne. SPARQL query language for RDF. W3c recommentation, W3C, January 2008.Google Scholar
- D. Silver. Smart Start-ups: How to Make a Fortune from Starting Online Communities, page 5. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Specia and E. Motta. Integrating folksonomies with the semantic web. The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, pages 624--639, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Vander Wal. Folksonomy definition and wikipedia, November 2005. http://www.venderwal.net/random/entrysel.php?blog=1750.Google Scholar
- C. Veres. The language of folksonomies: What tags reveal about user classification. Natural Language Processing and Information Systems, pages 58--69, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. M. A. Yeung, N. Gibbins, and N. Shadbolt. Understanding the semantics of ambiguous tags in folksonomies. In P. Haase, A. Hotho, L. Chen, E. Ong, and P. C. Mauroux, editors, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Emergent Semantics and Ontology Evolution (ESOE2007) at ISWC/ASWC2007, Busan, South Korea, November 2007.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Correlating user profiles from multiple folksonomies
Recommendations
Folksonomy-based personalized search by hybrid user profiles in multiple levels
Recently, some systems have allowed users to rate and annotate resources, e.g., MovieLens, and we consider that it provides a way to identify favorite and non-favorite tags of a user by integrating his or her rating and tags. In this paper, we review ...
Personalized tag recommendation based on user preference and content
ADMA'10: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Advanced data mining and applications - Volume Part IIWith the widely use of collaborative tagging system nowadays, users could tag their favorite resources with free keywords. Tag recommendation technology is developed to help users in the process of tagging. However, most of the tag recommendation ...
De-correlating User Profiles: Exploring Anonymity Tools
MEDES '14: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital EcoSystemsThe privacy of cloud users is at risk. Privacy invasive profiling technologies are becoming more powerful than ever. Users are not only identifiable through their explicitly disclosed data but also through aggregate analysis of metadata - i.e. data ...
Comments