Tag-based algorithms can predict human ratings of which objects a picture shows
- 121 Downloads
Collaborative tagging platforms allow users to describe resources with freely chosen keywords, so called tags. The meaning of a tag as well as the precise relation between a tag and the tagged resource are left open for interpretation to the user. Although human users mostly have a fair chance at interpreting this relation, machines do not. In this paper we study the characteristics of the problem to identify descriptive tags, i.e. tags that relate to visible objects in a picture. We investigate the feasibility of using a tag-based algorithm, i.e. an algorithm that ignores actual picture content, to tackle the problem. Given the theoretical feasibility of a well-performing tag-based algorithm, which we show via an optimal algorithm, we describe the implementation and evaluation of a WordNet-based algorithm as proof-of-concept. These two investigations lead to the conclusion that even relatively simple and fast tag-based algorithms can yet predict human ratings of which objects a picture shows. Finally, we discuss the inherent difficulty both humans and machines have when deciding whether a tag is descriptive or not. Based on a qualitative analysis, we distinguish between definitional disagreement, difference in knowledge, disambiguation and difference in perception as reasons for disagreement between raters.
KeywordsSemantic annotation Image tagging behaviour Descriptive tags Flickr WordNet
The Know-Center is funded within the Austrian COMET Program—Competence Centers for Excellent Technologies—under the auspices of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology, the Austrian Federal Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth and by the State of Styria. COMET is managed by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency FFG.
- 3.Blanche MT, Durrheim K, Painter D (eds) (2006) Research in practice—applied methods for the social sciences. University of Cape Town PressGoogle Scholar
- 4.Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS (2003) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN: 0805822232Google Scholar
- 5.Gangemi A, Guarino N, Oltramari R (2001) Conceptual analysis of lexical taxonomies: the case of wordnet top-level. In: Proceedings of the international cnference on formal ontology in information systems. ACM Press, pp 285–296Google Scholar
- 8.Mika P (2005) Ontologies are us: a unified model of social networks and semantics. In: Gil Y, Motta E, Benjamins VR, Musen MA (eds) International semantic web conference. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3729. Springer, pp 522–536Google Scholar
- 11.OpenCyc (2010) http://www.opencyc.org/. Last visited: 10 Aug 2010
- 12.Pammer V, Kump B, Lindstaedt S (2009) On the feasibility of a tag-based approach for deciding which objects a picture shows: an empirical study. In: Semantic multimedia. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Semantic and Digital Media Technologies, SAMT 2009. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5887/2009. Graz, Austria, 2–4 Dec 2009. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 40–51Google Scholar
- 14.Schmitz P (2006) Inducing ontology from flickr tags. In: Proceedings of the collaborative web tagging workshop at WWW2006. Edinburgh, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
- 15.Sigurbjörnsson B, van Zwol R (2008) Flickr tag recommendation based on collective knowledge. In: Huai J, Chen R, Hon H-W, Liu Y, Ma W-Y, Tomkins A, Zhang X (eds) (2008) WWW. ACM, pp 327–336Google Scholar
- 18.Wimmer RD, Dominick JR (2006) Mass media research: an introduction, 8th edn. Thomson WadsworthGoogle Scholar