Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Semantic Tagging on Historical Maps
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

Semantic Tagging on Historical Maps

237

Published on

ACM WebSci'13 Talk

ACM WebSci'13 Talk

Published in: Internet, Technology, Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
237
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Semantic Tagging on Historical Maps Bernhard Haslhofer and Werner Robitza (University ofVienna) Carl Lagoze (University of Michigan) François Guimbretière (Cornell University) ACM Web Science 2013, Paris
  • 2. ACM Web Science 2013, May 2013 Tagging 2 flickr:wlappe/2902517299/ Paris Paris http://youtu.be/hWo-43ObCP8
  • 3. ACM Web Science 2013, May 2013 Tagging - Problems 3 Paris Paris
  • 4. ACM Web Science 2013, May 2013 Label- vs. Semantic Tagging utr Label-based tagging [Marlow et al. 2006] K u rx t ry about Semantic tagging tag: String tag: URI Reference 4
  • 5. ACM Web Science 2013, May 2013 5 http://maphub.github.com
  • 6. ACM Web Science 2013, May 2013 Semantic Tagging in Maphub There is a DBpedia/Wikipedia URI behind each visual tag http://dbpedia.org/resource/ Mediterranean_sea 6
  • 7. ACM Web Science 2013, May 2013 Semantic Tagging in Maphub 7 K u rx t1 ry rz + t2 -
  • 8. ACM Web Science 2013, May 2013 Research Questions • What are the effects of semantic tagging on • tag production • types and categories of tags added • user task load ... compared to other tagging techniques. 8
  • 9. ACM Web Science 2013, May 2013 Methodology • In-lab experiment, 24 students, 2 maps • Each creating 4 annotations under varying conditions • Label-based tagging (LT) • Suggestive tagging (ST) • Semantic tagging (SMT) • Semantic tagging with context display (SMT-CTX) • Pre- and post-test surveys (NASA TLX) 9
  • 10. ACM Web Science 2013, May 2013 • No difference in accepted tags between SEM/SEM-CTX and LT • Less rejected tags under SEM/ SEM-CTX than under ST Results / Effect on Tag Production 0 2 4 6 LT ST SMT SMT−CTX Condition MeanNumberofTags User Feedback accepted rejected 10
  • 11. ACM Web Science 2013, May 2013 • Tag types : no significant difference among conditions • 48% factual • 52% personal • Tag categories: no significant difference among conditions • 54% locations • 7% persons or groups • 39% other Results / Effect on Tag Types and Categories 11
  • 12. ACM Web Science 2013, May 2013 Results / Effect on User Task Load Mental Eff. Physical Eff. Temporal Eff. Success Effort Frustr. 0 2 4 Average TLX Score condition LT ST SMT SMT−CTX • Additional effort caused by SMT and SMT-CTX had no effect on user task load • Participants found SMT- CTX most useful and intuitive 12
  • 13. ACM Web Science 2013, May 2013 Results / Summary • Semantic tagging (as implemented in Maphub) provides unambiguous relationships to well-defined and linked Web resources and does NOT affect • tag production • types and categories of tags • user task load 13
  • 14. ACM Web Science 2013, May 2013 Other Observations “I am doing this [annotation] because I am from the Philadelphia area” 14
  • 15. ACM Web Science 2013, May 2013 Thanks ! @bhaslhofer http://slideshare.net/bhaslhofer http://bernhardhaslhofer.info http://maphub.github.io 15

×