Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Visualizing and Managing Folksonomies, SASWeb 2011 workshop, at UMAP 2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Visualizing and Managing Folksonomies, SASWeb 2011 workshop, at UMAP 2011


Published on

Published in: Technology, Education

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Visualizing and Managing Folksonomies Antonina Dattolo { Emanuela PitassiUniversity of Udine, Via delle Scienze 206, I-33100 Udine, Italy June 25, 2011
  • 2. Outline Background Open Issues Our Proposal Folkview: the formal model Folkview views and authoring Related works Conclusion and future work
  • 3. Background I The advent of Web 2.0 shifts the task of classifying resources from a reduce set of experts, to the wide set of Web users. I Free classi
  • 4. cations are made by user thanks to tags, which generate a folksonomy (Vander Wal, 2004; Mathes, 2004) I Several social tagging systems such as Bibsonomy (Hotho et al, 2006) or delicious allow users to classify resources and generate folksonomies, but they are dicult to manage, modify and visualize in dynamic and personalized ways.
  • 5. Background: some examples I The creation of personalized views, which may display a limited, well de
  • 6. ned and personalized sub-portion of an entire hyperspace has already been considered in dierent settings. I Adptive bookmarking systems, e.g.: I PowerBookmarks (Li et al, 1999) I Siteseer (Rucker et al, 1997) I Web Tagger (Keller et al, 1997) I Start pages on Web browser, e.g.: I Netvibes ( I My Yahoo ( I iGoogle (
  • 7. Open Issues I Social Tagging Systems suer from dierent issues: I the lack and the exigence of general methotodologies for extracting semantic information (Dattolo et al., 2010) I the lack and the exigence of personalized and dynamic workspaces in wich users I Can visualize personalized views of the folksonomy I Can apply personal changes I A crucial task for developers of current Web application is how to model and create speci
  • 8. c tools for providing personalized views to the users.
  • 9. Open Issues I A folksonomy is usually represented by a tripartite graph or network Various researches have dealt with the issue related to the complexity of the nature of the graph itself, projecting a folksonomy on simpli
  • 10. ed structures (Lambiotte, 2006; Dattolo, 2011). I Generally a folksonomy is represented by a tag-cloud, but this kind of visualization is not sucient as the sole means of navigation (Sinclair, 2007). I Possible multiple visualizations of a folksonomy allow users to: I have a more eective comprehension of the semantic relations of a folksonomy I have a more useful navigation through the involved elements I manipulate the existing relations among tags and resources according to the user needs.
  • 11. Our Proposal I The main aim of this work is to propose and describe a novel, distributed, modular system called Folkview, whereby a folksonomy is conceived dynamically through the use of multiple agents. I These agents will be capable of I managing the structural and semantic properties; I cooperating for obtaining common objectives; I oering personalized and dynamic views. I Steps: I De
  • 12. nition of the Formal Model which exploits multi-agents system I Personalized views Folkview Prototype
  • 13. The formal model I Traditionally, given the sets of users U , tags T and and resources R , a folksonomy is de
  • 14. ned as the set of tag assignments (u ; r ; t ) P U ¢ T ¢ R i j k where i = 1; : : : ; jU j; j = 1; : : : ; jT j; k = 1; : : : ; jR j, each of them indicating that user u has tagged the resource r with i j t . k I User pro
  • 15. les, functions, metrics or semantic relations among users, tags, resources and tas are not intrinsic properties of the folksonomy.
  • 16. The structural components of the folksonomy I In order to de
  • 17. ne a F , we identify three classes of sets: I T 2 T is the set of tags used by u on r ; ui ;rj i j I R 2 R is the set of resources tagged by u with t ; ui ;tk i k I U is the set of users that tagged r with t . tk ;rj j k I Each set represents a structural component of the folksonomy, and we call it structural ; the tags are grouped associating to them a semantic label for identifying their meaning in that dimension.
  • 18. Our representation of a folksonomy Figure: 6 structural dimensions (left) and the corresponding folksonomy (right) The
  • 19. gure above represents three linear paths that contain the resources tagged by user u , using respectively t , t and t . 1 1 2 3 The labels associated with them are respectively u ; t , u ; t and 1 1 1 2 u ; t , and represent a sub-portion of her personomy. 1 3
  • 20. De
  • 21. nition of Structural Dimension and Static Folksonomy De
  • 22. nition A structural dimension is a labeled path Dui ;rj = (V ; E ; ) where I V =T is the set of vertices, ui ;rj I E is the set of edges, I (e ) = (u ; r ) Ve P E is an edge labeling, and degree (t ) = 0; 1; 2 Vt P T i j k . k ui ;rj In particular, degree (t ) = 0; 1; 2 only if jT j = 1. k ui ;rj De
  • 23. nition A static folksonomy F is a labeled multigraph given by the union of three families of structural dimensions. F = [ Dui ;rj ‘ [ Dui ;tk ‘ [ Dtk ;rj i ;k i ;j j ;k
  • 24. A dimension as an agent We can introduce the de
  • 25. nition of the dimension h ui ; r j based on the structural dimension D . ui ;rj De
  • 26. nition A dimension h = (Ts ; En; Re ; Ac ) is an agent where I Ts = D ; ui ;rj I En = fu ; r ; t ; : : : ; t g; i j 1 n I Re = fYg, initially; I Ac = fadd -tag ; delete -tag ; modify -tag ; : : : g Analogously, we can de
  • 27. ne new classes of agent dimensions, not only for structural dimensions. New dimensions can be created directly from the user, or computed by the system applying speci
  • 28. c metrics, or generated applying ontological models: I each dimension can contain other dimensions; dimension associates a semantics to the set of grouped entities.
  • 29. Folksonomy de
  • 30. nition as a multi-agent system De
  • 31. nition A folksonomy F is a multi-agent system formally described as a labeled multigraph of agent entities, organized in semantic contexts, called dimensions. p= [h n i i =1 All in a folksonomy is a computational agent, equipped with a set of local variables, that de
  • 32. ne its internal state, and a modular and extensible set of procedural skills.
  • 33. Folkview views and authoring In the labeled multigraph contained in the de
  • 34. nition of p we can recognize the zz-structures (Nelson, 2004): they are non-hierarchical, minimalist, scalable structure for storing, linking and manipulating dierent kind of data. From these structures, we inherit many strengths, such as their intrinsic capability to preserve contextual interconnections among dierent information, thanks to their particular properties.
  • 35. Folkview views and authoring In the
  • 36. gure the presence of a black triangle symbol, in two positions, correspond to selected/not selected : these triangles are associated to scripts related to the session agent of the current visualization, and represent the mean to interact with the cell-agent. When selected, the session agent asks to the chosen resource (r , 9 in our example) the set of actions Ac that can be activated on it. Then r sends a multicast message to all the dimensions in 9 which it is included, and a run-time created contextual menu, organized in three meta-categories (views, metrics and semantics) is shown. I The
  • 37. rst category menu is concerning the dierent kinds of possible views I The other two categories of functions oered by the menu, are related to: I the computation of an extensible set of metrics , I the application of opportune semantic relations and ontologies in order to generate, for example, speci
  • 38. c recommendations on
  • 39. Related works I Few works have addressed the problem of interactive visualizations of folksonomies: I customized cluster maps for visualizing both the overview and the detail of semantic relationships intrinsic in the folksonomy (Montero et al., 2007); I using information visualization techniques (IF) to discover implicit relationships between users, tags and bookmarks, end-users have dierent ways to discover content and information otherwhise dicult to understand (Klerx and Duval, 2009) I the TagGraph project ( is a folksonomy navigator which visualizes the relationships between Flickr tags. I Nevertheless these works do not provide neither personalized views nor eective dynamic changes according to the user needs or preferences.
  • 40. Conclusion and future work I We have proposed an innovative way to conceive a folksonomy in terms of a multi-agent system,
  • 41. rst de
  • 42. ning a formal model and then showing Folkview. I We have built a partial, but modular and extensible, prototype, based on a public dataset taken from delicious, and that implements the structural aspects of the considered folksonomy. I As future work we want to extend the prototype: I to all the main functionality we discussed, focusing our attention on a semantic personalization; I to extract data from a large number of social tagging systems.