바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.48 No.4
Citation Share

Construction of Social Metadata Framework for Organizing Social Tags

Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science / Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, (P)1225-598X; (E)2982-6292
2014, v.48 no.4, pp.91-113
https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2014.48.4.091

(2014). Construction of Social Metadata Framework for Organizing Social Tags. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 48(4), 91-113, https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2014.48.4.091
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

Although social metadata has strengths in creating amount of user-contributed resource descriptions, its function is limited because of its non-systematic characteristics. This research proposed an alternative approach to semantic organization of social metadata. It analyzed the semantics of tags created in LibraryThing in order to provide bibliographic categories for describing information resources. Social information Architecture is adopted in generating the bibliographic categories so that social metadata framework can be constructed. This framework can provide the conceptual foundations for semantically organizing social metadata and is expected to be applied to the existing approaches to automatically organize social metadata.

keywords
소셜 메타데이터, 소셜 인포메이션 아키텍쳐, 태그, 서지적 카테고리, 기술사항, LibraryThing, Social Metadata, Social Information Architecture, Tag, Bibliographic Category, Resource Description, LibraryThing

Reference

1.

강신재 and Ding, Y. 2008. 태그 온톨로지와 기계학습을 이용한 추천시스템. 한국산업정보학회논문지, 13(5): 133-141.

2.

Al-Khalifa, H. S. and Davis, H. C. 2007. “Exploring the Value of Folksonomies for Creating Semantic Metadata.” International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 3(1):13-39.

3.

Alemu, G. B., Stevens, P. R. and Chandler, J. 2012. “The Social Space of Metadata: Perspectives of LIS Academics and Postgraduates on Standards-Based and Socially Constructed Metadata Approaches.” Journal of Library Metadata, 12(4): 311-344.

4.

Bischoff, K. et al. 2008. Can All Tags Be Used for Search? In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Napa Valley, California, October 26-October 30, 2008, pp.193-202.

5.

Brown, D. 2010. “Eight Principles of Information Architecture.” Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 36(6): 30-34.

6.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. Social Impact Assessment. [online] [cited 2014. 8. 27.] <http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/analytics/social-impact.htm>

7.

Golder, S. and Huberman, B. 2006. “Usage Patterns of Collaborative Tagging Systems.” Journal of Information Science, 32(2): 198-208.

8.

Guy, M. and Tonkin, E. 2006. Folksonomies: Tidying up tags?. D-Lib Magazine, 12(1). [online] [cited 2014. 7. 25.] <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january06/guy/01guy.html>

9.

Kakali, C. and Papatheodorou, C. 2010. “Exploitation of Folksonomies in Subject Analysis.”Library & Information Science Research, 32: 192-202.

10.

Kipp, M. 2007. Tagging Practices on Research Oriented Social Bookmarking Sites. In Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science, Montreal, QC, May 10-12, 2007. [online] [cited 2014. 6. 24.] <http://www.dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1533/>

11.

Lin, X. et al. 2006. Exploring Characteristics of Social Classification. In Proceedings of the 17th ASIS&T Classification Research Workshop, Austin, Texas, November 4, 2006.

12.

Mika, P. 2007. “Ontologies Are Us: A Unified Model of Social Networks and Semantics.”Journal of Web Semantics, 5(1): 5-15.

13.

Online Computer Library Center (OCLC). 2012. Social Metadata for Libraries, Archives and Museums, Part 1: Site Reviews. [online] [cited 2013. 5. 15.]<http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2012/2012-01r.html>

14.

Paul, P. K. 2014. Information Architecture and Social Information Architecture: Valuable Domain for Building Information Society - A Conceptual Overview. Pinnacle Educational Research & Development, 2014. [online] [cited 2014. 9. 2.]<http://pjpub.org/perd/perd_110.pdf>

15.

Saracevic, T. 2010. The Notion of Context in “Information Interaction in Context.” In Proceedings of the IIiX 2010 Information Interaction in Context Symposium, New Brunswick, MJ, USA, August 18-21, 2010.

16.

Smith, G. 2007. Social Information Architecture. Presentation in Information Architecture Summit 2007, Las Vegas, nevada, US, March 22, 2007. [online] [cited 2014. 8. 25.]<http://www.slideshare.net/gsmith/social-information-architecture-workshop>

17.

Smith, Gene. 2008. “Tagging: Emerging Trends.” Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 34(6): 14-17.

18.

Thomas, M., Caudle, D. and Schmitz, C. 2009. “To Tag or Not to Tag?” Library Hi Tech, 27(3): 411-434.

19.

Tonkin, E. 2006. Searching the Long Tail: Hidden Structure in Social Tagging. In J. Furner & J. T. Tennis, ed., In Proceedings of the 18th Workshop of the American Society for Information Science and Technology Special Interest Group in Classification Research, Austin, Texas, November 4, 2006.

20.

Voss, J. 2006. Collaborative Thesaurus Tagging the Wikipedia Way. [online] [cited 2014.7. 25.] <http://www.arxiv.org/abs/cs.IR/0604036>

21.

Warterna, C. and Brussee, R. 2008. Instanced-Based Mapping Between Thesauri and Folksonomies. In Proceedings of the 7th International Semantic Web Conference, Karisruhe, Germany, October 26-30, 2008, pp.356-370.

22.

Wra, T. and Eklund, P. W. 2010. Social Tagging for Digital Libraries Using Formal Concept Analysis. In Kryszkiewicz M. and Obiedkov, S. ed., CLA-2010: Concept Lattice and Their Applications. [online] [cited 2014. 9. 10.] <http://works.bepress.com/peklund/1>

Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science

e-Submission OA Policy