The Language of Folksonomies: What Tags Reveal About User Classification

  • Csaba Veres
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3999)


Folksonomies are classification schemes that emerge from the collective actions of users who tag resources with an unrestricted set of key terms. There has been a flurry of activity in this domain recently with a number of high profile web sites and search engines adopting the practice. They have sparked a great deal of excitement and debate in the popular and technical literature, accompanied by a number of analyses of the statistical properties of tagging behavior. However, none has addressed the deep nature of folksonomies. What is the nature of a tag? Where does it come from? How is it related to a resource? In this paper we present a study in which the linguistic properties of folksonomies reveal them to contain, on the one hand, tags that are similar to standard categories in taxonomies. But on the other hand, they contain additional tags to describe class properties. The implications of the findings for the relationship between folksonomy and ontology are discussed.


World Model Event Frame Sentence Frame Count Noun Ontology Engineering 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Barsalou, L.W.: Deriving categories to achieve goals. In: Bower, G. (ed.) The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. Academic Press, London (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barsalou, W.: Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition 11(3), 211–227 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Golder, S., Huberman, B.A.: The Structure of Collaborative Tagging Systems (2005),
  4. 4.
    Gruber, T.: Ontology of Folksonomy: A Mash-up of Apples and Oranges (January 19, 2006),
  5. 5.
    Hepp, M.: Products and Services Ontologies: A Methodology for Deriving OWL Ontologies from Industrial Categorization Standards. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 2(1), 72–99 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koivunen, M.-R., Swick, R.R.: Metadata Based Annotation Infrastructure offers Flexibility and Extensibility for Collaborative Applications. In: KCAP workshop on Knowledge markup and semantic annotation (2001),
  7. 7.
    Koivunen, M.-R.: Annotea and Semantic Web Supported Collaboration,
  8. 8.
    Marieke, G., Tonkin, E.: Folksonomies Tidying up Tags? D-Lib Magazine 12(1) (2006), ISSN 1082-9873
  9. 9.
    Mathes, A.: Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata,
  10. 10.
    Udell, J.: Collaborative knowledge gardening. InfoWorld (August 20, 2004),
  11. 11.
    Veres, C.: Aggregation in ontologies: Practical implementations in OWL. In: Lowe, D.G., Gaedke, M. (eds.) ICWE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3579, pp. 285–295. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Veres, C.: Automatically Generating Aggregations for Ontologies from Database Schema: some alternatives to type hierarchies. In: Collard, M. (ed.) ODBIS 2005/2006. LNCS, vol. 4623. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Veres, C., Sampson, J.: Ontology and Taxonomy: Why “is-a” still isn’t just “is-a”. In: Proceedings of The 2005 International Conference on e-Business, Enterprise Information Systems, e-Government, and Outsourcing. Las Vegas, Nevada (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wierzbicka, A.: Apples are not a ‘kind of fruit’: the semantics of human categorization. American Ethnologist, 313–328 (1984)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Csaba Veres
    • 1
  1. 1.Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyNorway

Personalised recommendations