Methodological Approach to Determine Appropriately Annotated Resources in Narrow Folksonomies

  • Céline Van Damme
  • Stijn Christiaens
  • Damien Trog
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5333)


Folksonomies are community managed vocabularies, and do not limit end users to employ a strict terminology in their annotating activities. Users are free to create and use whatever tag they like. Folksonomies have also been criticized to produce low quality meta data due to reduced quality control. In the case of narrow folksonomies where resources are evaluated by only one person there is no certainty that the resources are appropriately annotated. In this paper, we suggest a three-phase iterative approach to determine the properties, expressed in terms of tag ambiguity, of resources appropriately annotated in a narrow folksonomy to improve information retrieval. We also show brief results of the first steps of that approach in a case study involving a narrow folksonomy.


narrow folksonomies quality tags information retrieval 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Al-Khalifa, H., Davis, H.: Towards better understanding of folksonomic patterns. In: Proceedings of the 18th conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, pp. 163–166. ACM Press, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Damme, C.V., Hepp, M., Coenen, T.: Quality metrics for tags of broad folksonomies. In: Proceedings of the third International Conference on Semantic Systems (I-Semantics), J.UCS (2008) (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dorrow, B.: A Graph Model for Words and their Meanings. Phd thesis, University of Stuttgart (Faculty of filosophy and history), Germany (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Falkenberg, E.D.: Frisco: A framework of information system concepts. Technical report, IFIP WG 8.1 Task Group (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Golder, S., Huberman, B.: Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science 32(2), 198–208 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guy, M., Tonkin, E.: Tidying up tags. D-Lib Magazine (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee, S., Han, S.: Qtag: introducing the qualitative tagging system. In: Proceedings of the 18th conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, pp. 35–36. ACM Press, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moor, A.D., Leenheer, P.D., Meersman, R., Starlab, V.: Dogma-mess: A meaning evolution support system for interorganizational ontology engineering. In: Schärfe, H., Hitzler, P., Øhrstrøm, P. (eds.) ICCS 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4068, pp. 189–203. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Quintarelli, E.: Folksonomies: power to the people (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schmitz, P.: Inducing ontology from flickr tags. In: Proceedings of Collaborative Web Tagging Workshop at WWW 2006, Edinburgh, UK (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sen, S., Harper, F., LaPitz, A., Riedl, J.: The quest for quality tags. In: Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Conference on supporting group work, pp. 361–370. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sen, S., Lam, S., Cosley, D., Frankowski, D., Osterhouse, J., Harper, F., Riedl, J.: Tagging, communities, vocabulary, evolution. In: Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pp. 181–190. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Specia, L., Motta, E.: Integrating folksonomies with the semantic web. In: Franconi, E., Kifer, M., May, W. (eds.) ESWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4519, pp. 624–639. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Céline Van Damme
    • 1
  • Stijn Christiaens
    • 2
  • Damien Trog
    • 2
  1. 1.MOSI Vrije Universiteit BrusselBelgium
  2. 2.Semantics Technology and Applications Research LaboratoryVrije Universiteit BrusselBelgium

Personalised recommendations