Metadata Mechanisms: From Ontology to Folksonomy ... and Back

  • Stijn Christiaens
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4277)


In this paper we give a brief overview of different metadata mechanisms (like ontologies and folksonomies) and how they relate to each other. We identify major strengths and weaknesses of these mechanisms. We claim that these mechanisms can be classified from restricted (e.g., ontology) to free (e.g., free text tagging). In our view, these mechanisms should not be used in isolation, but rather as complementary solutions, in a continuous process wherein the strong points of one increase the semantic depth of the other. We give an overview of early active research already going on in this direction and propose that methodologies to support this process be developed. We demonstrate a possible approach, in which we mix tagging, taxonomy and ontology.


tagging folksonomy community informatics faceted classification ontology Semantic Web 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Blumberg, R., Atre, S.: The problem with unstructured data. DM Review Magazine, February 2003 (2003),
  2. 2.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Scientific American 284(5), 34–43 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Moor, A., Keeler, M., Richmond, G.: Towards a pragmatic web. In: Proc. of the 10th International Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS 2002), Borovets, Bulgaria. LNCS, Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singh, M.P.: The pragmatic web. Internet Computing 6(3), 4–5 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Reilly, T.: What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software (09-30-2005),
  6. 6.
    Smith, G.: Atomiq: Folksonomy: social classification (August 3, 2004),
  7. 7.
    Wal, T.V.: Explaining and showing broad and narrow folksonomies (February 21, 2005),
  8. 8.
    Vickery, B.C.: Faceted classification: a guide to construction and use of special schemes. Aslib, London (1960)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kwasnick, B.H.: The role of classification in knowledge representation and discovery. Library Trends 48(1), 22–47 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specification. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Borst, W.N.: Construction of Engineering Ontologies. Centre for Telematica and Information Technology, University of Twenty. Enschede, The Netherlands (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gómez-Pérez, A., Corcho, O., Fernández-López, M.: Ontological Engineering. Springer, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller, E., Manola, F.: RDF primer. W3C recommendation, W3C (February 2004),
  14. 14.
    van Harmelen, F., McGuinness, D.L.: OWL web ontology language overview. W3C recommendation, W3C (February 2004),
  15. 15.
    Ajita, J., Seligmann, D.: Collaborative tagging and expertise in the enterprise. In: WWW 2006, Edinburgh, UK (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bloesch, A.C., Halpin, T.A.: Conquer: A conceptual query language. In: Thalheim, B. (ed.) ER 1996. LNCS, vol. 1157, pp. 121–133. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shirky, C.: Ontology is overrated: Categories, links, and tags (2005),
  18. 18.
    Nonaka, I., Konno, N.: The concept of ba: Building foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review 40(3) (Spring 1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xu, Z., Fu, Y., Mao, J., Su, D.: Towards the semantic web: Collaborative tag suggestions. In: WWW 2006, Edinburgh, UK (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schmitz, P.: Inducing ontology from flickr tags. In: WWW 2006, Edinburgh, UK (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tzitzikas, Y., Analyti, A.: Mining the meaningful term conjunctions from materialised faceted taxonomies: Algorithms and complexity. Knowledge and Information Systems 9(4), 430–467 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bar-Ilan, J., Shoham, S., Idan, A., Miller, Y., Shachak, A.: Structured vs. unstructured tagging - a case study. In: WWW 2006, Edinburgh, UK (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    de Moor, A., De Leenheer, P., Meersman, R.A.: DOGMA-MESS: A meaning evolution support system for interorganizational ontology engineering. In: Proc. of the 14th International Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS 2006), Aalborg, Denmark. LNCS, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Leenheer, P., Meersman, R.: Towards a formal foundation of dogma ontology: part i. Technical Report STAR-2005-06, VUB STARLab, Brussel (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    De Leenheer, P., de Moor, A., Meersman, R.: Context dependency management in ontology engineering. Technical Report STAR-2006-03-01, VUB STARLab, Brussel (March 2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Trog, D., Vereecken, J.: Context-driven visualization for ontology engineering. Master’s thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stijn Christiaens
    • 1
  1. 1.Semantics Technology and Applications Research LaboratoryVrije Universiteit Brussel 

Personalised recommendations