Semantic metadata management in web 2.0
Authors: 
Johann Stan, Pierre MaretAuthors Info & Claims
Article No.: 6, Pages 1 - 10
Abstract
Interoperability between systems dealing with social data is a major challenge for the Social and Semantic Web. This tutorial talk compares the different models that have been proposed by the Semantic Web Community for capturing social content in social media sites(e.g. information about users and shared content). Several questions will be addressed related to these models: What are the existing models that allow to semantically capture and describe information about users, annotations in the social Web? What are the characteristics of such models? What are the differences between those models? The main objective of this talk is the mapping of such models to a set of high-level criteria that helps researchers and developers make their decision of which model to choose whenever there is a need to use a semantic metadata model and how to federate them.
References
[1]
F. Abel. The benefit of additional semantics in folksonomy systems. pages 49--56, 2008.
[2]
F. F. Y. Z. AdaptiveBlue, DERI (NUI Galway) and Zigtag. CommonTag: Open Tagging Format. 2009. {Online; accessed 20-October-2010}.
[3]
M. Baldauf, S. Dustdar, and F. Rosenberg. A survey on context-aware systems. Int. J. Ad Hoc Ubiquitous Comput., 2:263--277, June 2007.
[4]
K. Barker, M. Askari, M. Banerjee, K. Ghazinour, B. Mackas, M. Majedi, S. Pun, and A. Williams. A data privacy taxonomy. In BNCOD, pages 42--54, 2009.
[5]
J. G. Breslin, A. Harth, U. Bojars, and S. Decker. Towards semantically-interlinked online communities. The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, pages 500--514, 2005.
[6]
F. Carmagnola, F. Cena, O. Cortassa, C. Gena, and I. Torre. Towards a tag-based user model: How can user model benefit from tags? In C. Conati, K. F. McCoy, and G. Paliouras, editors, User Modeling, volume 4511 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 445--449. Springer, 2007.
[7]
V. Consortium. Electronic Business Card Spacification. http://www.w3c.org/Submission/vcard-rdf/, 1995. {Online; accessed 20-October-2010}.
[8]
F. Echarte, J. J. Astrain, A. Córdoba, and J. E. Villadangos. Ontology of folksonomy: A new modelling method. In S. Handschuh, N. Collier, T. Groza, R. Dieng, M. Sintek, and A. de Waard, editors, SAAKM, volume 289 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org, 2007.
[9]
B. Fitzpatrick. OpenID Decentralized Authentification Initiative. http://openid.net/, 2005. {Online; accessed 20-October-2010}.
[10]
S. Gauch, J. Chaffee, and A. Pretschner. Ontology-based user profiles for search and browsing, 2002.
[11]
S. Golder and B. A. Huberman. The structure of collaborative tagging systems. Aug. 2005.
[12]
T. Gruber. Ontology of folksonomy: A mash-up of apples and oranges. Int Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 3(2), 2007.
[13]
I. Jacobs and N. Walsh. Architecture of the World Wide Web. 2004. {Online; accessed 20-October-2010}.
[14]
A. John. hCard Contact Information Vocabulary. 2007. {Online; accessed 20-October-2010}.
[15]
J. Kahan and M.-R. Koivunen. Annotea: an open rdf infrastructure for shared web annotations. In WWW '01: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 623--632, New York, NY, USA, 2001. ACM.
[16]
A. Katifori, M. Golemati, C. Vassilakis, G. Lepouras, and C. Halatsis. Creating an ontology for the user profile: Method and applications. In C. Rolland, O. Pastor, and J.-L. Cavarero, editors, RCIS, pages 407--412, 2007.
[17]
A. Katifori, M. Golemati, C. Vassilakis, G. Lepouras, and C. Halatsis. Creating an ontology for the user profile: Method and applications. In C. Rolland, O. Pastor, and J.-L. Cavarero, editors, RCIS, pages 407--412, 2007.
[18]
H.-L. Kim, J. Breslin, S.-K. Yang, and H.-G. Kim. Social semantic cloud of tag: Semantic model for social tagging. Agent and Multi-Agent Systems: Technologies and Applications, pages 83--92, 2008.
[19]
T. Knerr. Tagging ontology - towards a common ontology for folksonomies, 2006. http://tagont.googlecode.com/files/TagOntPaper.pdf.
[20]
F. Limpens, A. Monnin, D. Laniado, and F. Gandon. Nicetag ontology: tags as named graphs. 2009.
[21]
A. Mathes. Folksonomies -- cooperative classification and communication through shared metadata. Computer Mediated Communication - LIS590CMC, December 2004.
[22]
P. Mika. Ontologies are us: A unified model of social networks and semantics. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 5(1):5--15, 2007. Selected Papers from the International Semantic Web Conference, International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2005).
[23]
A. Miles and S. Bechhofer. Skos simple knowledge organization system reference. August 2008.
[24]
M. Naaman, J. Boase, and C.-H. Lai. Is it really about me?: message content in social awareness streams. In CSCW '10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pages 189--192, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
[25]
R. Newman, D. Ayers, and S. Russell. Tag ontology, December 2005. http://www.holygoat.co.uk/owl/redwood/0.1/tags/.
[26]
A. Passant. Lodr - a linking open data tagging system. In Proceedings of the First Social Data on the Web Workshop (SDoW2008), Karlsruhe, Germany, October 27 2008.
[27]
A. Passant and P. Laublet. Combining structure and semantics for ontology-based corporate wikis. bis 2008: 58--69.
[28]
B. Rousseau, P. Browne, P. Malone, P. Foster, and V. Mendis. Personalised resource discovery searching over multiple repository types: Using user and information provider profiling. In ICEIS (5), pages 35--43, 2004.
[29]
M. Rowe and F. Ciravegna. Getting to me: Exporting semantic social network from facebook. 2008.
[30]
M. Stankovic. Modeling online presence. In J. Breslin, U. Bojars, A. Passant, and S. Fernandez, editors, Proceedings of the First Social Data on the Web Workshop, Karlsruhe, Germany, volume 405, Karlsruhe, Germany, 10 2008. CEUR Workshop Proceedings.
[31]
M. Sutterer, O. Droegehorn, and K. David. Upos: User profile ontology with situation-dependent preferences support. In ACHI '08: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interaction, pages 230--235, Washington, DC, USA, 2008. IEEE Computer Society.
[32]
J. Teevan, S. T. Dumais, and E. Horvitz. Personalizing search via automated analysis of interests and activities. In SIGIR '05: Proceedings of the 28th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 449--456, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM.
[33]
J. Trajkova and S. Gauch. Improving ontology-based user profiles. In C. Fluhr, G. Grefenstette, and W. B. Croft, editors, RIAO, pages 380--390. CID, 2004.
[34]
E. Vildjiounaite, O. Kocsis, V. Kyllönen, and B. Kladis. Context-dependent user modelling for smart homes. In C. Conati, K. F. McCoy, and G. Paliouras, editors, User Modeling, volume 4511 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 345--349. Springer, 2007.
[35]
A. von Hessling, T. Kleemann, and A. Sinner. Semantic user profiles and their applications in a mobile environment. In Artificial Intelligence in Mobile Systems 2004, 2004.
[36]
S. W. I. G. W3C Consortium. Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages. 2007. {Online; accessed 20-October-2010}.
Index Terms
- Semantic metadata management in web 2.0
Recommendations
Semantic web reasoners and languages
Semantic web reasoners and languages enable the semantic web to function. Some of the latest reasoning models developed in the last few years are: DLP, FaCT, RACER, Pellet, MSPASS, CEL, Cerebra Engine, QuOnto, KAON2, HermiT and others. Some software ...
Using the Semantic Web for linking and reusing data across Web 2.0 communities
Large volumes of content (bookmarks, reviews, videos, etc.) are currently being created on the ''Social Web'', i.e. on Web 2.0 community sites, and this content is being annotated and commented upon. The ability to view an individual's entire ...
Semantic Web in Comparison to Web 2.0
ISMS '12: Proceedings of the 2012 Third International Conference on Intelligent Systems Modelling and SimulationThe Semantic Web is not a separate Web but an extension of the current one, in which information is given well-defined meaning, better enabling computers and people to work in cooperation. It is also referred to as Web 3.0 and is an upcoming technology. ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
June 2012
571 pages
ISBN:9781450309158
DOI:10.1145/2254129
- Conference Chair:
- Dumitru Dan Burdescu,
- Program Chairs:
- Rajendra Akerkar,
- Costin Bădică
Copyright © 2012 Authors.
Sponsors
- UCV: University of Craiova
- WNRI: Western Norway Research Institute
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 13 June 2012
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Tutorial
Conference
WIMS '12
Sponsor:
- UCV
- WNRI
WIMS '12: 2nd International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics
June 13 - 15, 2012
Craiova, Romania
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 140 of 278 submissions, 50%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 338Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)6
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
Reflects downloads up to 19 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in