This paper demonstrates the comparative analysis of the similarity and difference between Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and social tags. Both types of metadata have the same purpose—that is, succinctly abstracting content of a given document—but are created from heterogeneous viewpoints. The former MeSH terms show the aspects of publication related professionals, whereas the latter social tags are from the perspectives of general readers. When both types of metadata are assigned to the same publications, do they consist of different nomenclatures reflecting the heterogeneous viewpoints or are they similar, since both metadata types describe the same publications? Social tags are also compared with family terms of MeSH terms in the given MeSH hierarchy, so as to understand the specificity of social tags, related to MeSH terms. Lastly, given the fact that readers assign social tags in casual ways without any restricted vocabulary, we tested how many social tags contain consumer health terms, which are familiar to laypeople. Through these comparisons, we ultimately aim to examine how much the highly controlled publication index reflects general readers’ cognitive understandings and stress the necessity of general readers’ involvement in the publication indexing process.
Becchetti, L. et al. 2006. A comparison of sampling techniques for web graph characterization.
Benz, D. et al. 2010. The Social Bookmark and Publication Management System BibSonomy.The VLDB Journal, 19(6), 849-875.
Brown, P. et al. 1996. The democratic indexing of images. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 2(1), 107-120.
Bruce, R. 2008. Descriptor and Folksonomy Concurrence in Education Related Scholarly Research. Webology, 5(3).
Burnett, K., Ng., K. B., and Park, S. 1999. A comparison of the two traditions of metadata development. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci, 50(13), 1209-1217.
Chevalier, M. et al. 2011. Information Retrieval and Folksonomies together for Recommender Systems. E-Commerce and Web Technologies, 85, 172-183.
Cleveland, D. B., and Cleveland, A. D. 2001. Introduction to Indexing and Abstracting. 3rd ed. USA: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Ferrara, F., and Tasso, C. 2011. Improving collaborative filtering in social tagging systems. in Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Advances in artificial intelligence: spanish association for artificial intelligence. Spain: Springer-Verlag.
Golder, S., and Huberman, B. 2006. Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 198-208.
Good, B., Tennis, J., and Wilkinson, M. 2009. Social tagging in the life sciences: characterizing a new metadata resource for bioinformatics. BMC Bioinformatics, 10(1), 1-17.
Heckner, M., Mühlbacher, S., and Wolff, C. 2008. Tagging tagging. Analysing user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems. Journal of Digital Information, 9(2).
Hidderley, R., and Rafferty, P. 1997. Democratic Indexing: An approach to the retrieval of Fiction. PAYS-BAS: IOS Press.
Keselman, A. et al. 2008. Developing Informatics Tools and Strategies for Consumer-centered Health Communication. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 15(4), 473-483.
Kim, H. L., Decker, S., and Breslin, J. 2010. Representing and sharing folksonomies with semantics. Journal of Information Science, 36(1), 57-72.
Kipp, M. 2006. Complementary or Discrete Contexts in Online Indexing: A Comparison of User, Creator, and Intermediary Keywords. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 30(3).
Kipp, M. 2008. Tagging for Health Information Organization and Retrieval. TCDL Bulletin, 4(1).
Kipp, M. 2011. User, Author and Professional Indexing in Context: An Exploration of Tagging Practices on CiteULike. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 35(1), 17-48.
Knecht, L. W. S., and Nelson, S. J. 2002. Mapping in PubMed. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90(4), 475.
Lancaster, E. W. 2003. Indexing and Abstracting in Theory and Practice. Champaign, Illinois:Intellitext Corporation.
Lee, D. H., and Schleyer, T. 2010. A Comparison of MeSH terms and CiteULike Social Tags as Metadata for the Same Items. in the 1st ACM International Conference on Health Informatics (IHI 2010). USA: Washington DC.
Lee, D. H., and Schleyer, T. 2012. Social tagging is no substitute for controlled indexing:A comparison of Medical Subject Headings and CiteULike tags assigned to 231,388 papers.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(9), 1747-1757.
Lin, X. et al. 2006. Exploring Characteristics of Social Classification. in 17th ASIS&T SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop.
Liu, B. 2007. Informational Retrieval and Web Search, in Web Data Mining: Exploring Hyperlinks, Contents and Usage Data. Edited by B. Liu. New York: Springer.
Marlow, C. et al. 2006. HT06, tagging paper, taxonomy, Flickr, academic article, to read, in Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on Hypertext and hypermedia. Denmark: ACM.
Mathes, A. 2004. Folksonomies - cooperative classification and communication through shared metadata. Computer Mediated Communication.
Mika, P. 2005. Flink: Semantic Web technology for the extraction and analysis of social networks. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 3(2-3), 211-223.
Noll, M. G., and Meinel, C. 2007. Authors vs. readers: a comparative study of document metadata and content in the www, in Proceedings of the 2007 ACM symposium on Document engineering. Canada: ACM.
Suchanek, F. M., Vojnovic, M., and Gunawardena, D. 2008. Social tags: meaning and suggestions. in Proceeding of the 17th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management. USA: ACM.
Yi, K. 2010. A semantic similarity approach to predicting Library of Congress subject headings for social tags. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1658-1672.
Yi, K., and Chan, L. 2009. Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress subject headings:an exploratory study. Journal of Documentation, 65(6), 872-900.
Zeng-Treitler, Q. et al. 2008. Estimating Consumer Familiarity with Health Terminology:A Context-based Approach. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 15(3), 349-356.