Personalizing and Improving Tag-Based Search in Folksonomies

  • Samia Beldjoudi
  • Hassina Seridi-Bouchelaghem
  • Catherine Faron-Zucker
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7557)

Abstract

Recently, the approaches that combine semantic web ontologies and web 2.0 technologies have constituted a significant research field. We present in this paper an original approach concerning a technology that has recognized a great popularity in these recent years, we talk about folksonomies. Our aim in this contribution is propose new technique for the Social Semantic Web technologies in order to see how we can overcome the problem of tags’ ambiguity automatically in folksonomies even when we choose representing these latter with ontologies. We’ll also illustrate how we can enrich any folksonomy by a set of pertinent data to improve and facilitate the resources’ retrieval in these systems; all this with tackling another problem, we speak about spelling variations.

Keywords

Folksonomies Web 2.0 Semantic Web Tags Ambiguity Spelling Variations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Beldjoudi, S., Seridi, H., Faron-Zucker, C.: Ambiguity in Tagging and the Community Effect in Researching Relevant Resources in Folksonomies. In: Proc. of ESWC Workshop User Profile Data on the Social Semantic Web (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beldjoudi, S., Seridi, H., Faron-Zucker, C.: Improving Tag-based Resource Recommendation with Association Rules on Folksonomies. In: Proc. of ISWC Workshop on Semantic Personalized Information Management: Retrieval and Recommendation (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Bruijn, J. (ed.): RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility. W3C Recommendation (June 22, 2010), http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-rif-rdf-owl-20100622/
  4. 4.
    de Sainte Marie, C., Hallmark, G., Paschke, A. (eds.): RIF Production Rule Dialect. W3C Recommendation (June 22, 2010), http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-rif-prd-20100622/
  5. 5.
    Gruber, T.: Tag Ontology-a way to agree on the semantics of tagging data (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Limpens, F., Gandon, F., Buffa, M.: Sémantique des folksonomies: structuration collaborative et assistée, IC (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mika, P.: Ontologies Are Us: A Unified Model of Social Networks and Semantics. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 522–536. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pan, J., Taylor, S., Thomas, E.: Reducing Ambiguity in Tagging Systems with Folksonomy Search Expansion. In: Proc. of the 17th International World Wide Web Conference (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samia Beldjoudi
    • 1
  • Hassina Seridi-Bouchelaghem
    • 1
  • Catherine Faron-Zucker
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory of Electronic Document Management LabGEDBadji Mokhtar UniversityAnnabaAlgeria
  2. 2.I3S, Université Nice - Sophia Antipolis, CNRSSophia Antipolis CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations