Towards a user-oriented thesaurus for non-domain-specific image collections

This study explored how user-supplied tags can be applied to designing a thesaurus that reflects the unique features of image documents. Tags from the popular image-sharing Web site Flickr were examined in terms of two central components of a thesaurus-selected concepts and their semantic relations-as well as the features of image documents. Shatford's facet category and Rosch et al.'s basic-level theory were adopted for examining concepts to be included in a thesaurus. The results suggested that the best approach to Color and Generic category descriptors is to focus on basic-level terms and to include frequently used superordinate- and subordinate-level terms. In the Abstract category, it was difficult to specify a set of abstract terms that can be used consistently and dominantly, so it was suggested to enhance browsability using hierarchical and associative relations. Study results also indicate a need for greater inclusion of Specific category terms, which were shown to be an important tool in establishing related tags. Regarding semantic relations, the study indicated that in the identification of related terms, it is important that descriptors not be limited only to the category in which a main entry belongs but broadened to include terms from other categories as well. Although future studies are needed to ensure the effectiveness of this user-oriented approach, this study yielded promising results, demonstrating that user-supplied tags can be a helpful tool in selecting concepts to be included in a thesaurus and in identifying semantic relations among the selected concepts. It is hoped that the results of this study will provide a practical guideline for designing a thesaurus for image documents that takes into account both the unique features of these documents and the unique information-seeking behaviors of general users.

[1]  Jonathon S. Hare,et al.  Facing the reality of semantic image retrieval , 2007, J. Documentation.

[2]  Bernardo A. Huberman,et al.  Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems , 2006, J. Inf. Sci..

[3]  June Abbas,et al.  User Reactions as Access Mechanism: An Exploration Based on Captions for Images , 1999, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[4]  M. Naaman,et al.  Position Paper, Tagging, Taxonomy, Flickr, Article, ToRead , 2006 .

[5]  C. J. van Rijsbergen,et al.  (invited paper) A new theoretical framework for information retrieval , 1986, SIGIR '86.

[6]  Paul Miller,et al.  Metadata for the Masses , 1996 .

[7]  P. Kay,et al.  Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution , 1973 .

[8]  Jakob Voß,et al.  Tagging, Folksonomy & Co - Renaissance of Manual Indexing? , 2007, ArXiv.

[9]  Enrico Motta,et al.  Integrating Folksonomies with the Semantic Web , 2007, ESWC.

[10]  Marcia J. Bates,et al.  Indexing and Access for Digital Libraries and the Internet: Human, Database, and Domain Factors , 1998, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[11]  Corinne Jörgensen Image Retrieval: Theory and Research , 2003 .

[12]  Sara Shatford Layne,et al.  Some Issues in the Indexing of Images , 1994, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[13]  P. Valdez,et al.  Effects of color on emotions. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[14]  Carolyn M. Hall,et al.  Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science , 1971 .

[15]  D. Grant Campbell,et al.  A PHENOMENOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SEMANTIC WEB AND USER-CENTERED TAGGING SYSTEMS , 2006 .

[16]  Birger Hjørland,et al.  Semantics and knowledge organization , 2007, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[17]  Elaine Svenonius,et al.  Design of Controlled Vocabularies , 2003 .

[18]  Louise Spiteri,et al.  Structure and form of folksonomy tags: The road to the public library catalogue , 2007, Webology.

[19]  P. Shaver,et al.  Emotion knowledge: further exploration of a prototype approach. , 1987, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[20]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  Marieke Guy,et al.  Folksonomies: Tidying Up Tags? , 2006, D Lib Mag..

[22]  Hector Garcia-Molina,et al.  Collaborative Creation of Communal Hierarchical Taxonomies in Social Tagging Systems , 2006 .

[23]  Edie M. Rasmussen,et al.  Searching for images: The analysis of users' queries for image retrieval in American history , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[24]  Lois F. Lunin,et al.  Perspectives on ... The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science , 1985, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[25]  Sara Shatford Layne Some issues in the indexing of images , 1994 .

[26]  Ellen Winner,et al.  Perceiving What Paintings Express , 1984 .

[27]  Ingemar J. Cox,et al.  PicHunter: Bayesian relevance feedback for image retrieval , 1996, Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Pattern Recognition.

[28]  Karen Markey Access to Iconographical Research Collections. , 1988 .

[29]  Antony J. Chapman,et al.  Cognitive processes in the perception of art , 1984 .

[30]  Peter Mika Ontologies Are Us: A Unified Model of Social Networks and Semantics , 2005, International Semantic Web Conference.

[31]  Alan Trachtenberg,et al.  Rhetoric of the Image , 2008 .

[32]  Susanne Ornager The newspaper image database: empirical supported analysis of users' typology and word association clusters , 1995, SIGIR '95.

[33]  Corinne Jörgensen,et al.  The visual indexing vocabulary: Developing a thesaurus for indexing images across diverse domains , 2005, ASIST.

[34]  Peter G. B. Enser,et al.  Analysis of user need in image archives , 1997, J. Inf. Sci..

[35]  Corinne Jörgensen,et al.  Attributes of Images in Describing Tasks , 1998, Inf. Process. Manag..

[36]  Mor Naaman,et al.  Why do tagging systems work? , 2006, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[37]  Brian C. O'Connor,et al.  Modelling what users see when they look at images: a cognitive viewpoint , 2002, J. Documentation.

[38]  J. Russell,et al.  Concept of Emotion Viewed From a Prototype Perspective , 1984 .

[39]  Sara Shatford,et al.  Analyzing the Subject of a Picture: A Theoretical Approach , 1986 .

[40]  Carol A. Bean,et al.  Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge , 2001, Information Science and Knowledge Management.

[41]  David Bearman,et al.  Social Terminology Enhancement through Vernacular Engagement: Exploring Collaborative Annotation to Encourage Interaction with Museum Collections , 2005, D Lib Mag..

[42]  Michael McGill,et al.  Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval , 1983 .

[43]  JungWon Yoon An Exploration of Needs for Connotative Messages during Image Search Process , 2006, ASIST.

[44]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  Structured versus unstructured tagging: a case study , 2008, Online Inf. Rev..

[45]  Jennifer Trant,et al.  SOCIAL CLASSIFICATION AND FOLKSONOMY IN ART MUSEUMS: EARLY DATA FROM THE STEVE.MUSEUM TAGGER PROTOTYPE , 2006 .

[46]  Marcia J. Bates,et al.  Subject access in online catalogs: A design model , 1986 .

[47]  Raya Fidel,et al.  The image retrieval task: implications for the design and evaluation of image databases , 1997, New Rev. Hypermedia Multim..

[48]  Dagobert Soergel,et al.  Organizing information - principles of data base and retrieval systems , 1985 .

[49]  Abebe Rorissa,et al.  User-generated descriptions of individual images versus labels of groups of images: A comparison using basic level theory , 2008, Inf. Process. Manag..

[50]  K. Markey Access to iconographic research collections , 1988 .

[51]  Dagobert Soergel The Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT): A Critical Appraisal , 1995 .

[52]  F. W. Lancaster,et al.  Vocabulary control for information retrieval , 1972 .