Advertisement

From Folksologies to Ontologies: How the Twain Meet

  • Peter Spyns
  • Aldo de Moor
  • Jan Vandenbussche
  • Robert Meersman
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4275)

Abstract

Ontologies are instruments for capturing and using formal semantics, and are often the result of a ”central committee controlled” style of working. A new trend on the Web is the increasing popularity of folksologies in the form of social bookmarking sites. Folksologies provide informal semantics and can be created and adopted by anybody anytime anywhere on the Internet. Shared meaning in a folksology emerges through the use of tags that are used to bookmark web pages, their usage frequency being considered a reliable indicator of their usefulness and acceptance.

Rather than choosing for either ontologies or folksologies, hybrid emergent semantics systems are needed that combine elements of both perspectives, depending on the particular application. There is a need to analyse the larger picture (including the full range of semantics’ functionalities in their context of use.

In this paper, we outline a number of key design characteristics of emergent semantics systems (ESS). We examine the functionalities of two existing examples of well-known ESSs: del.icio.us and Piggy Bank. Using the results of this comparison, we introduce DogmaBank as a proof of concept implementation of a next-generation ESS that introduces a more advanced combination of lexical and conceptual emergent semantics functionalities.

Keywords

Formal Semantic Ontology Engineering Ontology Server Social Bookmark Concept Label 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aberer, K., Catarci, A.M.O(e.) T., Cudré-Mauroux, P., Dillon, T.S., Grimm, S., Hacid, M.-S., Illarramendi, A., Jarrar, M., Kashyap, V., Mecella, M., Mena, E., Neuhold, E.J., Ouksel, A.M., Risse, T., Scannapieco, M., Saltor, F., Santis, L.d., Spaccapietra, S., Staab, S., Studer, R., De Troyer, O.: Emergent semantics systems. In: Bouzeghoub, M., Goble, C.A., Kashyap, V., Spaccapietra, S. (eds.) ICSNW 2004. LNCS, vol. 3226, pp. 14–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aberer, K., Cudré-Mauroux, P., Hauswirth, M.: A framework for semantic gossiping. SIGMOD Record Special Issue 31(4), 48–53 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batini, C., Lenzerini, M., Navathe, S.: A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Computing Surveys 18(4), 323–364 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Behrens, C., Kashyap, V.: The Emergent Semantic Web: A consensus approach for deriving Semantic Knowledge on the Web. In: Real World Semantic Web Applications. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 92. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Scientific American 284(5), 34–43 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burton-Jones, A., Storey, V., Sugumaran, V.: A semiotic metrics suite for assessing the quality of ontologies. Data and Knowledge Engineering 55(1), 84–102 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buvac, S.: Resolving lexical ambiguity using a formal theory of context. In: Van Deemter, Peters (eds.) Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. CSLI Publications (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cudré-Mauroux, P., Aberer, K., et al.: Viewpoints on emergent semantics. Journal of Data Semantics 2880 (to appear)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Leenheer, P., Meersman, R.: Towards a formal foundation of DOGMA ontology Part I: Lexon base and concept definition server. Technical Report STAR-2005-06, STAR Lab, Brussel (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Moor, A.: Patterns for the pragmatic web. In: Dau, F., Mugnier, M.-L., Stumme, G. (eds.) ICCS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3596, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Moor, A., De Leenheer, P., Meersman, R.: DOGMA-MESS: A meaning evolution support system for interorganizational ontology engineering. In: Proc. of the 14th International Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS 2006). LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ding, L., Finin, T., Joshi, A., Peng, Y., Scott Cost, R., Sachs, J., Pan, R., Reddivari, R.P., Doshi, V.: Swoogle: A semantic web search and metadata engine. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Euzenat, J., Le Bach, T., Barrasa, J., Bouquet, P., De Bo, J., et al.: State of the art on ontology alignment. Knowledge Web Deliverable #D2.2.3, INRIA, Saint Ismier (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Farrugia, J.: Model-theoretic semantics for the web. In: Proceedings of the WWW 2003 Conference, pp. 277–287 (2003), http://www2003.org/cdrom/
  15. 15.
    Giunchiglia, F., Yatskevich, M., Giunchiglia, E.: Efficient semantic matching. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 272–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernández-López, M., Corcho, O.: Ontological Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grosky, W., Sreenath, D., Fotouhi, F.: Emergent semantics and the multimedia semantic web. SIGMOD Record Special Issue 31(4), 54–58 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gruber, T.R.: A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 6(2), 199–221 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gruber, T.: Ontology of folksonomy: A mash-up of apples and oranges. In: First On-line Conference on Meta-Data and Semantics Research (MTSR 2005) (2005), http://tomgruber.org/
  20. 20.
    Guarino, N., Giaretta, P.: Ontologies and knowledge bases: Towards a terminological clarification. In: Mars, N. (ed.) Towards Very Large Knowledge Bases: Knowledge Building and Knowledge Sharing, pp. 25–32. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Vetere, G.: Ontoseek: Content-based access to the web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 70–80 (May 4-June 5, 1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guarino, N.: Formal ontologies and information systems. In: Guarino, N. (ed.) Proceedings of FOIS 1998, pp. 3–15. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Halpin, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases. Academic Press, London (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hartmann, J., Spyns, P., Maynard, D., Cuel, R., de Figueroa, M.C.S., Sure, Y.: Methods for ontology evaluation. KnowledgeWeb Deliverable #D1.2.3 (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hinchcliffe, D.: 10 issues facing web2.0 today (2005), http://web2.wsj2.com/10_issues_facing_web_20_going_into_2006.htm
  26. 26.
    Hotho, A., Jäschke, R., Schmitz, C., Stumme, G.: Information retrieval in folksonomies: Search and ranking. In: Proceedings of the 3rd European Semantic Web Conference. LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huynh, D.F., Mazzocchi, S., Karger, D.R.: Piggy bank: Experience the semantic web inside your web browser. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 413–430. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jarke, M., Lenzerini, M., Vassiliou, Y., Vassiliadis, Y.: Fundamentals of Data Warehouses. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jarrar, M., Meersman, R.: Formal ontology engineering in the dogma approach. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., et al. (eds.) CoopIS 2002, DOA 2002, and ODBASE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2519, pp. 1238–1254. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lausen, H., Ding, Y., Stollberg, M., Fensel, D., Lara, R., Han, S.K.: Semantic web portals: state-of-the-art survey. Journal of Knowledge Management 9(5) (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lund, B., Flack, T.H.M., Hannay, T.: Social bookmarking tools (ii): a case study - Connotea. D-Lib Magazine 11(4) (2005), http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april05/lund/04lund.html
  32. 32.
    Maedche, A., Staab, S., Studer, R., Sure, Y., Volz, R.: SEAL — tying up information integration and web site management by ontologies. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 25(1), 10–17 (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maguitman, A., Menczer, F., Roinestad, H., Vespignani, A.: Algorithmic detection of semantic similarity. In: Proc. of the WWW 2005 Conference. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mathes, A.: Folksonomies: Cooperative classification and communication through shared metadata (2004), http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated-communication/folksonomies.html
  35. 35.
    Maynard, D.: Benchmarking ontology-based annotation tools for the semantic web. In: UK e-Science Programme All Hands Meeting (AHM2005) Workshop Text Mining, e-Research and Grid-enabled Language Technology (2005)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mazzocchi, S.: Folksologies: de-idealizing ontologies. Blog (2005), http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/85/
  37. 37.
    McGuinness, D.: Question answering on the semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 82–85 (January/February 2004)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Meersman, R.: Semantic web and ontologies: Playtime or business at the last frontier in computing?. In: NSF-EU Workshop on Database and Information Systems Research for Semantic Web and Enterprises, pp. 61 – 67. NSF-EU (2002)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Meersman, R.: The use of lexicons and other computer-linguistic tools in semantics, design and cooperation of database systems. In: Zhang, Y., Rusinkiewicz, M., Kambayashi, Y. (eds.) The Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Cooperative Database Systems for Advanced Applications (CODAS 1999), pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Merholz, P.: Metadata for the masses (2004), http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000361.php
  41. 41.
    Merholz, P.: Clay Shirky’s viewpoints are overrated (2005), http://www.peterme.com/archives/000558.html
  42. 42.
    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
  43. 43.
    Nirenburg, S., Raskin, V.: Ontological semantics, formal ontology, and ambiguity. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, pp. 151–161. ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Oberle, D., Spyns, P.: Handbook on Ontologies, chapter OntoWeb - Knowledge Portal. In: International Handbooks on Information Systems, pp. 499–516. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ogden, C.K., Richards, I.A.: The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism, 10th edn. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., London (1923)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Popov, B., Kiryakov, A., Ognyanoff, D., Manov, D., Kirilov, A.: KIM - a semantic platform for information extaction and retrieval. Journal of Natural Language Engineering 10(3-4), 375–392 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schoop, M., de Moor, A., Dietz, J.: The pragmatic web: A manifesto. Commun. ACM 49(5), 75–76 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sheth, A.P., Ramakrishnan, C., Thomas, C.: Semantics for the Semantic Web: The Implicit, the Formal and the Powerful. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 1(1), 1–18 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Shirky, C.: The semantic web, syllogism, and worldview (2003), http://www.shirky.com
  50. 50.
    Shirky, C.: Ontology is overrated: Categories, links and tags (2005), http://www.shirky.com
  51. 51.
    Spyns, P., Meersman, R., Jarrar, M.: Data modelling versus ontology engineering. SIGMOD Record Special Issue 31(4), 12–17 (2002)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Spyns, P., Oberle, D., Volz, R., Zheng, J., Jarrar, M., Sure, Y., Studer, R., Meersman, R.: OntoWeb - A semantic web community portal. In: Karagiannis, D., Reimer, U. (eds.) PAKM 2002. LNCS, vol. 2569, pp. 189–200. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Spyns, P., Meersman, R.: From knowledge to interaction: from the semantic to the pragmatic web. Technical Report 05, STAR Lab, Brussel (2003)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Spyns, P., De Bo, J.: Ontologies: A revamped cross-disciplinary buzzword or a truly promising interdisciplinary research topic? Linguistica Antverpiensia NS 3, 279–292 (2004)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Spyns, P., Reinberger, M.-L.: Lexically evaluating ontology triples generated automatically from texts. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 563–577. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Spyns, P.: Object Role Modelling for Ontology Engineering in the DOGMA Framework. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM-WS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3762, pp. 710–719. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Uschold, M., Gruninger, M.: Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications. Knowledge Sharing and Review 11(2) (June 1996)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ushold, M., Gruninger, M.: Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications. The Knowledge Engineering Review 11(2), 93–155 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Spyns
    • 1
  • Aldo de Moor
    • 1
  • Jan Vandenbussche
    • 1
  • Robert Meersman
    • 1
  1. 1.STAR LabVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselBelgium

Personalised recommendations