2008 23rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering - Workshops 2008
DOI: 10.1109/asew.2008.4686305
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bridging ontologies and folksonomies to leverage knowledge sharing on the social Web: A brief survey

Abstract: Social tagging systems have recently became very popular as a means to classify large sets of resources shared among on-line communities over the social Web. However, the folksonomies resulting from the use of these systems revealed limitations : tags are ambiguous and their spelling may vary, and folksonomies are difficult to exploit in order to retrieve or exchange information. This article compares the recent attempts to overcome these limitations and to support the use of folksonomies with formal languages… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
17
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The creation of shared metadata on e-learning objects through social tagging is another promising aspect of collaborative content creation in e-learning environments (Dahl & Vossen, 2008;Limpens, Gandon & Buffa, 2008;Lux & Dosinger, 2007;Maier & Thalmann, 2008). Rather than relying on established top-down ontologies and directories, bottom-up 'folksonomies' support the learner by providing a cognitive tool for knowledge building and negotiation: to tag a learning object the learner needs to develop an understanding sufficient enough to be able to summarize it by a set of keywords.…”
Section: The Social Dimensionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The creation of shared metadata on e-learning objects through social tagging is another promising aspect of collaborative content creation in e-learning environments (Dahl & Vossen, 2008;Limpens, Gandon & Buffa, 2008;Lux & Dosinger, 2007;Maier & Thalmann, 2008). Rather than relying on established top-down ontologies and directories, bottom-up 'folksonomies' support the learner by providing a cognitive tool for knowledge building and negotiation: to tag a learning object the learner needs to develop an understanding sufficient enough to be able to summarize it by a set of keywords.…”
Section: The Social Dimensionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Staley (2009) claims that Web 2.0 technologies "represent as important a historical phenomenon as the birth of bureaucracy" (p. 38) in that "they signal a participatory turn in our culture" (p. 39). Far from being a passing fad represented by Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia, Twitter, or any other individual instantiation, Web 2.0 is an evolution in the social architecture and functionality of the Web (Limpens, Gandon, & Buffa, 2008) representing the potential of the individual-what Staley calls "wikinomics, a new form of social economy based on a truly participatory framework. About the future of the tertiary institution, he asks: "How will the logic of wikinomics affect [the] time-honored arrangement between teachers and students?"…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several other research works tried to tackle the limitations of folksonomies by bridging them with ontologies [5]. Passant and Laublet [6] have proposed a model (MOAT) and some tools to link tags with their different meanings which are expressed within documents (Wikipedia articles) or concepts instances available on the Semantic Web.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The lack of structure in folksonomies means that content retrieval tasks, such as searching, subscription and exploration, are limited (Begelman, Keller and Smadja, 2006;Limpens, Gandon and Buffa, 2008;Angeletou, Sabou and Motta, 2008;Lin and Davis, 2010). Acquiring latent hierarchical structures from folksonomies and creating tag hierarchies can be useful in improving content retrieval (Laniado, Eynard and Colombetti, 2007), and also other different tasks, such as building lightweight ontologies (Mika, 2007) and enriching knowledge bases (Zheng, Wu and Yu, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%