Tagging-Aware Portlets

  • Oscar Díaz
  • Sandy Pérez
  • Cristóbal Arellano
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5648)


A corporate portal supports a community of users on cohesively managing a shared set of resources. Such management should also include social tagging, i.e. the practice of collaboratively creating and managing tags to annotate and categorize content. This task involves to know both what to tag (hence, the rendering of the resource content) and how to tag (i.e. the tagging functionality itself). Traditionally both efforts are accomplished by the same application (Flickr is a case in point). However, portals decouple these endeavours. Tagging functionality is up to the portal, but content rendering can be outsourced to third-party applications: the portlets. Portlets are Web applications that transparently render their markup through a portal. The portal is a mere conduit for the portlet markup, being unaware of what this markup conveys. This work addresses how to make portlets tagging-aware, i.e. portlets that can be seamlessly plugged into the portal tagging infrastructure. The main challenge rests on consistency at both the back-end (i.e. use of a common structure for tagging data, e.g. a common set of tags), and the front-end (i.e. tagging interactions to be achieved seamlessly across the portal using similar rendering guidelines). Portlet events and RDFa annotations are used to meet this requirement. A running example in WebSynergy illustrates the feasibility of the approach.


tagging portlets Web portals RDFa WSRP Liferay 


  1. 1.
    Adida, B., Birbeck, M.: RDFa Primer. Technical report, W3C Working Group (2008),
  2. 2.
    Ames, M., Naaman, M.: Why we tag: motivations for annotation in mobile and online media. In: CHI 2007: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 971–980 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Díaz, O., Rodríguez, J.J.: Portlets as Web Components: an Introduction. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 454–472 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    DiMicco, J., Millen, D.R., Geyer, W., Dugan, C., Brownholtz, B., Muller, M.: Motivations for social networking at work. In: CSCW 2008: Proceedings of the ACM 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 711–720 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Golder, S.A., Hubermann, B.A.: The Structure of Collaborative Tagging System. In: CoRR (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Java Community Process (JCP). JSR 286: Portlet Specification Version 2.0 (2008),
  7. 7.
    Millen, D.R., Yang, M., Whittaker, S., Feinberg, J.: Social bookmarking and exploratory search. In: ECSCW 2007: Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 21–40 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Muller, M.J.: Comparing tagging vocabularies among four enterprise tag-based services. In: GROUP 2007: Proceedings of the 2007 International ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp. 341–350 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    OASIS. Web Services for Remote Portlets (WSRP) Version 2.0 (2008),
  10. 10.
    Thom-Santelli, J., Muller, M.J., Millen, D.R.: Social tagging roles: publishers, evangelists, leaders. In: CHI 2008: Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1041–1044 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Knerr, T.: Tagging Ontology - Towards a Common Ontology for Folksonomies,

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oscar Díaz
    • 1
  • Sandy Pérez
    • 1
  • Cristóbal Arellano
    • 1
  1. 1.ONEKIN Research GroupUniversity of the Basque CountrySan SebastiánSpain

Personalised recommendations