Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tag-based fuzzy sets for criteria evaluation in on-line selection processes

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Searching for a suitable item on the web becomes a tedious and time-consuming task. The success of that process depends on how well items are described, as well as how well a system is able to mimic a human way of performing selection. This is especially important when the user identifies a variety of criteria with different levels of priority. One of interesting developments of web 2.0 is tagging. Tagging is a process of describing web resources of any type for the identification purposes preformed by ordinary users. All items are annotated by anyone who wants to provide descriptions or comments about items. Each item together with all tags describing it is called a tag-cloud. In the paper we propose a novel approach of converting information embedded in tag-clouds into fuzzy representations of tags. Those fuzzy representations allow us to determine the strength of tag-item connections, and identify a single resource that satisfies a specific tag to the highest degree. We use this idea to represent users’ feedback as tag-based fuzzy sets which we combine with a lexicographical-based multi-criteria decision-making mechanism in order to build the selection engine for a knowledge-based recommender system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The terms “item” and “resource” are interchangeable.

  2. LibraryThing.com.

  3. This procedure represents a kind of "soft" lexicographic approach rather then a “hard/binary” lexicographic method described earlier.

  4. A process of determining the values of B and C should take into account a distribution of occurrences, and should represents user’s point of view in identifying what is treated as not small anymore (B), and already large (C). In general, many different approached can be applied here.

References

  • Adomavicius G, Kwon YO (2007) New recommendation techniques for multicriteria rating systems. IEEE Intell Syst 22(3):48–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adomavicius G, Tuzhilin A (2005) Toward the next generation of recommender systems: a survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 17(6):734–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansari A, Essegaier S, Kohli R (2000) Internet recommendation systems. J Market Res 37:363–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke R (2000) Knowledge-based recommender systems. In: Kent A (ed) Encyclopedia of library and information systems, vol 69, supp 32. Marcel Dekker, New York

  • Burke R (2002) Hybrid recommender systems: survey and experiments. User Model User Adapt Interact 12(4):331–370

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cattuto C, Loreto V, Pietronero L (2007) Semiotic dynamics and collaborative tagging. Natl Acad Sci PNAS 104(5):1461–1464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catutto C, Benz D, Hotho A, Stumme G (2008) Semantic grounding of tag relatedness in social bookmarking systems. In: 7th international conference on the semantic web, pp 615–631

  • Cho J, Kwon K, Park Y (2007) Collaborative filtering using dual information sources. IEEE Intell Syst 22(3):30–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Church KW (2008) Approximate lexicography and web search. Int J Lexicogr 21(3):325–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu W-T, Kannampallil T, Kang RA (2009) Semantic imitation model of social tag choices. In: 2009 international conference on computational science and engineering, pp 66–73

  • Ganzha M, Paprzycki M, Stadnik J (2010) Combining information from multiple search engines—preliminary comparison. Inf Sci 180(10):1908–1923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giegerenzer G, Goldstein DG (1996) Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychol Rev 103(4):650–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golder S, Huberman B (2006) The structure of collaborative tagging systems. J Inf Sci 32:198–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herlocker JL, Konstan JA, Terveen LG, Riedl JT (2004) Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems. ACM Trans Inf Syst 22(1):5–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Chiclana F (2001) Multiperson decision-making based on multiplicative preference relations. Eur J Oper Res 129:372–385

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth RH, Karelaia N (2006) “Take-the-best” and other simple strategies: why and when they work “well” with binary cues. Theory Decis 61:205–249

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hotho A, Jaschke R, Schmitz C, Stumme G (2006) Information retrieval in folksonomies: search and ranking. In: LNAI 4011: the semantic web: research and applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 411–426

  • Ji A-T, Yeon C, Kim H-N, Jo G-S (2007) Collaborative tagging in recommender systems. In: Orgun MA, Thornton J (eds) AI 2007, LNAI 4830, Springer, Berlin, pp 377–386

  • Karen HL, Tso-Sutter KHL, Marinho LB, Schmidt-Thieme L (2008) Tag-aware recommender systems by fusion of collaborative filtering algorithms. In: ACM symposium on applied computing ’08, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, March 16–20, pp 1995–1999

  • Lakiotaki K, Delias P, Sakkalis V, Matsatsinis NF (2009) User profiling based on multi-criteria analysis: the role of utility functions. Int J Oper Res 9:3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Li W, Zhong N, Yao Y, Liu J (2009) An operable email based intelligent personal assistant. World Wide Web 12(2):125–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (2006) The construction of preference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Loia V, Pedrycz W, Senatore S, Sessa MI (2007) Interactive knowledge management for agent-assisted web navigation. Int J Intell Syst 22(10):1101–1122

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lu Y-T, Yu S-I, Chang T-C, Hsu JY-j (2009) A content-based method to enhance tag recommendation. In: 21st international joint conference on artificial intelligence ‘09, Pasadena, CA, USA, pp 2064–2069

  • Mathes A (2004) Folksonomies—cooperative classification and communication through shared metadata. http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated-communication/folksonomies.html

  • Milicevic AK, Nanopoulos A, Ivanovic M (2010) Social tagging in recommender systems: a survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. Artif Intell Rev 33:187–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niwa S, Doi T, Honiden S (2006) Web page recommender system based on folksonomy mining for ITNG ‘06 submissions. In: Third international conference on information technology: new generations, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, pp 388–393

  • Schafer JB, Konstan JA, Riedl J (1999) Recommender systems in e-commerce, EC ‘99: first ACM conference on electronic commerce, Denver, CO, 3–5 November 1999, pp 158–166

  • Schmitt S, Bergmann R (1999) Applying case-based reasoning technology for product selection and customization in electronic commerce environments. In: 12th Bled electronic commerce conference. Bled, Slovenia

  • Slovic P (1995) The construction of preference. Am Psychol 50(5):364–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith G (2008) Tagging: people-powered metadata for the social web. New Riders, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Song Y, Zhang L, Giles CL (2009) Automatic tag recommendation algorithms for social recommender systems. ACM Trans Web

  • Tam KY, Ho SY (2005) Web personalization as a persuasion strategy: an elaboration likelihood model perspective. Inf Syst Res 16(3):271–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Towle B, Quinn C (2000) Knowledge based recommender systems using explicit user models. In: Knowledge-based electronic markets, the AAAI workshop. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, pp 74–77

  • Wang H-C, Lee C-S, Hoa T-H (2007) Combining subjective and objective QoS factors for personalized web service selection. Exp Syst Appl 32(2):571–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yager RR (2003) Fuzzy logic methods in recommender systems. Fuzzy Sets Syst 136:133–149

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Yager RR, Gumrah G, Reformat MZ (2010) Using a web personal evaluation tool—PET for lexicographic multi-criteria service selection. Report Machine Intelligence Institute Iona College

  • Yager RR, Reformat MZ (2010) Using fuzzy sets to model information provided by social tagging. In: Proceedings of the fuzz-IEEE at the world congress on computational intelligence WCCI 2010, Barcelona, pp 3258–3265

  • Yager RR, Reformat MZ, Gumrah G (2010) Web PET: an on-line tool for lexicographically choosing purchases. IEEE Intell Syst (in press)

  • Yanbe Y, Jatowt A, Nakamura S, Tanaka K (2007) Can social bookmarking enhance search in the web? 7th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 18–23 June 2007, pp 107–116

  • Yu J, Jeon M (2010) A context-aware intelligent recommender system in ubiquitous environment. 10th IASTED international conference on artificial intelligence and applications, pp 229–234

  • Zhang Q, Chen JCH, Chong PP (2004) Decision consolidation: criteria weight determination using multiple preference formats. Decis Support Syst 38:247–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang L, Wu X, Yu Y (2006) Emergent semantics from folksonomies: a quantitative study. J Data Semant VI 4090, pp 168–186

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. thinkS2: Thinking Software and System Laboratory, Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T6G 2V4, Canada

    Marek Z. Reformat

  2. Machine Intelligence Institute, Iona College, New Rochelle, NY, 10801, USA

    Ronald R. Yager

Authors
  1. Marek Z. Reformat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ronald R. Yager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald R. Yager.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reformat, M.Z., Yager, R.R. Tag-based fuzzy sets for criteria evaluation in on-line selection processes. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 2, 35–51 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-010-0037-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-010-0037-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation