Finding subject terms for classificatory metadata from user-generated social tags

With the increasing popularity of social tagging systems, the potential for using social tags as a source of metadata is being explored. Social tagging systems can simplify the involvement of a large number of users and improve the metadata‐generation process. Current research is exploring social tagging systems as a mechanism to allow nonprofessional catalogers to participate in metadata generation. Because social tags are not from controlled vocabularies, there are issues that have to be addressed in finding quality terms to represent the content of a resource. This research explores ways to obtain a set of tags representing the resource from the tags provided by users. Two metrics are introduced. Annotation Dominance (AD) is a measure of the extent to which a tag term is agreed to by users. Cross Resources Annotation Discrimination (CRAD) is a measure of a tag's potential to classify a collection. It is designed to remove tags that are used too broadly or narrowly. Using the proposed measurements, the research selects important tags (meta‐terms) and removes meaningless ones (tag noise) from the tags provided by users. To evaluate the proposed approach to find classificatory metadata candidates, we rely on expert users' relevance judgments comparing suggested tag terms and expert metadata terms. The results suggest that processing of user tags using the two measurements successfully identifies the terms that represent the topic categories of web resource content. The suggested tag terms can be further examined in various usages as semantic metadata for the resources.

[1]  Lois Mai Chan,et al.  Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress subject headings: an exploratory study , 2009, J. Documentation.

[2]  Melissa L. Rethlefsen Tags Help Make Libraries Del.icio.us: Social Bookmarking and Tagging Boost Participation. , 2007 .

[3]  Kwan Yi A semantic similarity approach to predicting Library of Congress subject headings for social tags , 2010 .

[4]  Justus J. Randolph Free-Marginal Multirater Kappa (multirater K[free]): An Alternative to Fleiss' Fixed-Marginal Multirater Kappa. , 2005 .

[5]  Peter J. Rolla User Tags versus Subject Headings: Can User-Supplied Data Improve Subject Access to Library Collections? , 2009 .

[6]  Emma L. Tonkin SEARCHING THE LONG TAIL: HIDDEN STRUCTURE IN SOCIAL TAGGING , 2006 .

[7]  George Macgregor,et al.  Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool , 2006 .

[8]  Wolfgang Nejdl,et al.  Can all tags be used for search? , 2008, CIKM '08.

[9]  Peter Mika,et al.  Ontologies are us: A unified model of social networks and semantics , 2005, J. Web Semant..

[10]  Andreas Hotho,et al.  Trend Detection in Folksonomies , 2006, SAMT.

[11]  Andreas Hotho,et al.  Information Retrieval in Folksonomies: Search and Ranking , 2006, ESWC.

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

[13]  Christoph Meinel,et al.  Authors vs. readers: a comparative study of document metadata and content in the www , 2007, DocEng '07.

[14]  J. Fleiss Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. , 1971 .

[15]  Eric Brill,et al.  Improving web search ranking by incorporating user behavior information , 2006, SIGIR.

[16]  Satoshi Nakamura,et al.  Can social bookmarking enhance search in the web? , 2007, JCDL '07.

[17]  Mor Naaman,et al.  HT06, tagging paper, taxonomy, Flickr, academic article, to read , 2006, HYPERTEXT '06.

[18]  John Riedl,et al.  The quest for quality tags , 2007, GROUP.

[19]  Michael B. Spring,et al.  Applying Social Annotations to Retrieve and Re-rank Web Resources , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Information Management and Engineering.

[20]  Danielle H. Lee,et al.  A comparison of meSH terms and CiteULike social tags as metadata for the same items , 2010, IHI.

[21]  Arkaitz Zubiaga,et al.  Getting the most out of social annotations for web page classification , 2009, DocEng '09.

[22]  Alton Yeow-Kuan Chua,et al.  Social tags for resource discovery: a comparison between machine learning and user-centric approaches , 2011, J. Inf. Sci..

[23]  Jennifer Trant,et al.  Exploring the potential for social tagging and folksonomy in art museums: Proof of concept , 2006, New Rev. Hypermedia Multim..

[24]  Georgia Koutrika,et al.  Can social bookmarking improve web search? , 2008, WSDM '08.

[25]  Yong Yu,et al.  Exploring social annotations for the semantic web , 2006, WWW '06.

[26]  Michael B. Spring,et al.  Tags as keywords - comparison of the relative quality of tags and keywords , 2009, ASIST.

[27]  Xiaohua Hu,et al.  User tags versus expert-assigned subject terms: A comparison of LibraryThing tags and Library of Congress Subject Headings , 2010, J. Inf. Sci..

[28]  Yong Yu,et al.  Optimizing web search using social annotations , 2007, WWW '07.

[29]  Hugh C. Davis,et al.  Towards better understanding of folksonomic patterns , 2007, HT '07.

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

[31]  Gerard Salton,et al.  Term-Weighting Approaches in Automatic Text Retrieval , 1988, Inf. Process. Manag..

[32]  Joan E. Beaudoin Folksonomies: Flickr image tagging: Patterns made visible , 2008 .