Abstract
In social tagging systems, people can annotate arbitrary tags to online data to categorize and index them. However, the lack of the “a priori” set of words makes it difficult for people to reach consensus about the semantics of tags and how to categorize data. Ontologies based approaches can help reaching such consensus, but they are still facing problems such as inability of model ambiguous and new concepts properly. For tags that are used very few times, since they can only be used in very specific contexts, their semantics are very clear and detailed. Although people have no consensus on these tags, it is still possible to leverage these detailed semantics to model the other tags. In this paper we introduce a random walk and spreading activation like model to represent the semantics of tags using semantics of unpopular tags. By comparing the proposed model to the classic Latent Semantic Analysis approach in a concept clustering task, we show that the proposed model can properly capture the semantics of tags.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Halpin H, Robu V, Shepherd H. The complex dynamics of collaborative tagging. In Proc. the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW 2007), Banff, Canada, May 8–12, 2007, pp.211-220.
Robu V, Halpin H, Shepherd H. Emergence of consensus and shared vocabularies in collaborative tagging systems. TWEB, 2009, 3(4): Article No.14.
Gruber T. Ontology of Folksonomy: A mash-up of apples and oranges. Int. J. Semantic Web Inf. Syst., 2007, 3(2): 1–11.
Schmitz C, Hotho A, Jaschke R, Stumme G. Mining association rules in folksonomies. In Proc. IFCS 2006, Ljubljana, Slovenia, Jul. 25–29, 2006, pp.261-270.
Hotho A, Jaschke R, Schmitz C, Stumme G. Information retrieval in folksonomies: Search and ranking. In Proc. the 3rd European Semantic Web Conference on the Semantic Web: Research and Applications (ESWC 2006), Budva, Montenegro, Jun. 11–14, 2006, pp.411-426.
Wu X, Zhang L, Yu Y. Exploring social annotations for the semantic web. In Proc. the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW 2006), Edinburgh, UK, May 23–26, 2006, pp.417-426.
Lambiotte R, Ausloos M. Collaborative tagging as a tripartite network. In Proc. the 14th International Conference on Conceptual Structures: Inspiration and Application (ICCS 2006), Aalborg, Denmark, Jul. 16–21, 2006, pp.1114-1117.
Zlatic V, Ghoshal G, Caldarelli G. Hypergraph topological quantities for tagged social networks. Physical Review E, 2009, 80(3): 036118.
Zhang Z K, Liu C. A hypergraph model of social tagging networks. J. Stat. Mech., 2010: P10005.
Mika P. Ontologies are us: A unified model of social networks and semantics. J. Web Sem., 2007, 5(1): 5–15.
Yeung C A, Gibbins N, Shadbolt N. Tag meaning disambiguation through analysis of tripartite structure of Folksonomies. In Proc. Web Intelligence/IAT Workshops 2007, Silicon Valley, USA, Nov. 2–5, 2007, pp.3–6.
Shang M S, Zhang Z K. Diffusion-based recommendation in collaborative tagging system. Chin. Phys. Lett., 2009, 26(11): 118903.
Zhang Z K, Zhou T, Zhang Y C. Personalized recommendation via integrated diffusion on user-tem-tag tripartite graphs. Physica A, 2010, 389(1): 179–186.
Shang M S, Zhang Z K, Zhou T, Zhang Y C. Collaborative filtering with diffusion-based similarity on tripartite graphs. Physica A, 2010, 389(6): 1259–1264.
Zhang Z K, Liu C, Zhang Y C, Zhou T. Solving the cold-start problem in recommender systems with social tags. Europhysics Letters, 2010, 92(2): 28002.
Tso-Sutter K H L, Marinho L B, Schmidt-Thieme L. Tag-aware recommender systems by fusion of collaborative filtering algorithms. In Proc. SAC 2008, Fortaleza, Brazil, Mar. 16–20, pp.1995–1999.
Wetzker R, Umbrath W, Said A. A hybrid approach to item recommendation in folksonomies. In Proc. ESAIR 2009, Barcelona, Spain, Feb. 9–11, 2009, pp.25–29.
Shen K, Wu L. Folksonomy as a complex network. Cornell University Library e-prints arXiv:cs/0509072vl, 2006, http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0509072.
Veres C. Concept modeling by the masses: Folksonomy structure and interoperability. In Proc. the 25th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Tucson, USA, Nov. 6–9, 2006, pp.325–338.
Cattuto C, Loreto V, Pietronero L. Collaborative tagging and semiotic dynamics. Cornell University Library e-prints arXiv:cs/0605015VI, 2006, http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0605015.
Fuxman A, Tsaparas P, Achan K, Agrawal R. Using the wisdom of the crowds for keyword generation. In Proc. the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW 2008), Beijing, China, Apr. 21–25, 2008, pp.61–70.
Fu W, Kannampallil T G, Kang R, He J. Semantic imitation in social tagging. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 2010, 17(3): Article No.12.
Manning C D, Raghavan P, Schutze H. Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Olson D L, Delen D. Advanced Data Mining Techniques. Springer, 2008.
Deerwester S C, Dumais S T, Landauer T K, Furnas G W, Harshman R A. Indexing by latent semantic analysis. JASIS, 1990, 41(6): 391–407.
R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org.
Karypis G. CLUTO: A Clustering Toolkit, http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/cluto/cluto/overview.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 61073062, the Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning Province of China under Grant No. 20102060 and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant No. N090604010.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, B., Zhang, Y. & Gao, KN. Modeling Consensus Semantics in Social Tagging Systems. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 26, 806–815 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-011-0179-y
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-011-0179-y