Power Tags as Tools for Social Knowledge Organization Systems

  • Isabella PetersEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization book series (STUDIES CLASS)


Web services are popular which allow users to collaboratively index and describe web resources with folksonomies. In broad folksonomies tag distributions for every single resource can be observed. Popular tags can be understood as “implicit consensus” where users have a shared understanding of tags as best matching descriptors for the resource. We call these high-frequent tags “power tags”. If the collective intelligence of the users becomes visible in tags, we can conclude that power tags obtain the characteristics of community controlled vocabulary which allows the building of a social knowledge organization system (KOS). The paper presents an approach for building a folksonomy-based social KOS and results of a research project in which the relevance of assigned tags for particular URLs in the social bookmarking system delicious has been evaluated. Results show which tags were considered relevant and whether relevant tags can be found among power tags.


  1. Aitchison J, Gilchrist A, Bawden D (2000) Thesaurus construction and use. Europa Publishing, London, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Egghe L, Rousseau R (1990) Introduction to informetrics. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  3. Halpin H, Robu V, Shepherd H (2007) The complex dynamics of collaborative tagging. In: Williamson CL, Zurko ME, Patel-Schneider PF, et al. (eds) Proc. of the 16th Int. WWW Conf. Banff, Alberta, Canada, ACM, New York, pp 211–220Google Scholar
  4. Hotho A, Jaeschke R, Schmitz C, et al. (2006) Information retrieval in folksonomies: Search and ranking. Lect Notes Comput Sci 4011:411–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kamps J, Lalmas M, Larsen B (2009) Evaluation in context. Lect Notes Comput Sci 5714:339–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kipp M, Campbell D (2006) Patterns and inconsistencies in collaborative tagging systems: An examination of tagging practices. In: Grove A (ed) Proc. of the 17th Annual Meet. of the Am. Soc. for Inf. Sci. and Tech, Austin, Texas, USA (CD-Rom)Google Scholar
  7. Marinho LB, Buza K, Schmidt-Thieme L (2008) Folksonomy-based collabulary learning. Lect Notes Comput Sci 5318:261–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mika P (2007) Ontologies are us: A unified model of social networks and semantics. J Web Semant 5 (1):5–15MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Peters I (2009) Folksonomies: Indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0. De Gruyter Saur, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Peters I, Stock WG (2010) Power tags in information retrieval. Libr Hi Tech 28(1):81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schmitz C, Hotho A, Jaeschke R, et al. (2006) Mining association rules in folksonomies. In: Batagelj V, Bock H, Ferligoj A, et al. (eds) Data science and classification. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 261–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schmitz P (2006) Inducing ontology from Flickr tags. In: Carr L, De Roure D, Iyengar A, et al. (eds) Proc. of the 15th Int. WWW Conf., Edinburgh, Scotland, ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Staab S, Santini S, Nack F, et al. (2002) Emergent semantics. Intell Syst 17(1):78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stock WG (2006) On relevance distributions. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tech 57(8):1126–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Surowiecki J (2005) The wisdom of crowds. Anchor Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Vander Wal T (2005) Explaining and showing broad and narrow folksonomies., cited 13 Aug 2010
  17. Voorhees EM (2001) The philosophy of information retrieval evaluation. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2406:355–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Weiss A (2005) The power of collective intelligence. NetWorker 9(3):16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Heinrich-Heine-University DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations