@phdthesis{peters2009folksonomies,
  author = {Peters, Isabella},
  interhash = {f52c87372515e42e0cde602a2fe8da39},
  intrahash = {a25702677dc406b1be7878215277050c},
  school = {Universität Düsseldorf},
  title = {Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval},
  type = {PhD thesis},
  year = 2009
}

@article{stock2008folksonomies,
  abstract = {Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval.
Die populären Web 2.0-Dienste werden von Prosumern – Produzenten und gleichsam Konsumenten – nicht nur dazu genutzt, Inhalte zu produzieren, sondern auch, um sie inhaltlich zu erschließen. Folksonomies erlauben es dem Nutzer, Dokumente mit eigenen Schlagworten, sog. Tags, zu beschreiben, ohne dabei auf gewisse Regeln oder Vorgaben achten zu müssen. Neben einigen Vorteilen zeigen Folksonomies aber auch zahlreiche Schwächen (u. a. einen Mangel an Präzision). Um diesen Nachteilen größtenteils entgegenzuwirken, schlagen wir eine Interpretation der Tags als natürlichsprachige Wörter vor. Dadurch ist es uns möglich, Methoden des Natural Language Processing (NLP) auf die Tags anzuwenden und so linguistische Probleme der Tags zu beseitigen. Darüber hinaus diskutieren wir Ansätze und weitere Vorschläge (Tagverteilungen, Kollaboration und akteurspezifische Aspekte) hinsichtlich eines Relevance Rankings von getaggten Dokumenten. Neben Vorschlägen auf ähnliche Dokumente („more like this!“) erlauben Folksonomies auch Hinweise auf verwandte Nutzer und damit auf Communities („more like me!“).

Folksonomies in Knowledge Representation and Information Retrieval
In Web 2.0 services “prosumers” – producers and consumers – collaborate not only for the purpose of creating content, but to index these pieces of information as well. Folksonomies permit actors to describe documents with subject headings, “tags“, without regarding any rules. Apart from a lot of benefits folksonomies have many shortcomings (e.g., lack of precision). In order to solve some of the problems we propose interpreting tags as natural language terms. Accordingly, we can introduce methods of NLP to solve the tags’ linguistic problems. Additionally, we present criteria for tagged documents to create a ranking by relevance (tag distribution, collaboration and actor-based aspects). Besides recommending similar documents („more like this!“) folksonomies can be used for the recommendation of similar users and communities („more like me!“).},
  author = {Peters, Isabella and Stock, Wolfgang G.},
  interhash = {a9a40e30db7636b46aca513bb73c6689},
  intrahash = {16fa5c5fc155e296ff885bf62d1a1230},
  journal = {Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis},
  number = 2,
  pages = {77--90},
  title = {Folksonomies in Wissensrepräsentation und Information Retrieval},
  url = {http://www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/infowiss/mitarbeiter/wissenschaftliche-mitarbeiter-hilfskraefte/isabella-peters/012-folksonomies-in-wissensrepraesentation-und-information-retrieval/},
  volume = 59,
  year = 2008
}

@article{macgregor2006collaborative,
  abstract = {The purpose of the paper is to provide an overview of the collaborative tagging phenomenon and explore some of the reasons for its emergence. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reviews the related literature and discusses some of the problems associated with, and the potential of, collaborative tagging approaches for knowledge organisation and general resource discovery. A definition of controlled vocabularies is proposed and used to assess the efficacy of collaborative tagging. An exposition of the collaborative tagging model is provided and a review of the major contributions to the tagging literature is presented. Findings - There are numerous difficulties with collaborative tagging systems (e.g. low precision, lack of collocation, etc.) that originate from the absence of properties that characterise controlled vocabularies. However, such systems can not be dismissed. Librarians and information professionals have lessons to learn from the interactive and social aspects exemplified by collaborative tagging systems, as well as their success in engaging users with information management. The future co-existence of controlled vocabularies and collaborative tagging is predicted, with each appropriate for use within distinct information contexts: formal and informal. Research limitations/implications - Librarians and information professional researchers should be playing a leading role in research aimed at assessing the efficacy of collaborative tagging in relation to information storage, organisation, and retrieval, and to influence the future development of collaborative tagging systems. Practical implications - The paper indicates clear areas where digital libraries and repositories could innovate in order to better engage users with information. Originality/value - At time of writing there were no literature reviews summarising the main contributions to the collaborative tagging research or debate.},
  author = {Macgregor, George and McCulloch, Emma},
  doi = {10.1108/00242530610667558},
  editor = {McMenemy, David},
  interhash = {8d7a458fb6f9ff722c7d02104ec6dbd0},
  intrahash = {97d3915ead822cfa033fc821b424e437},
  issn = {0024-2535},
  journal = {Library Review},
  number = 5,
  pages = {291-300},
  publisher = {Emerald Group Publishing Limited},
  title = {Collaborative Tagging as a Knowledge Organisation and Resource Discovery Tool},
  url = {http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00242530610667558},
  volume = 55,
  year = 2006
}

@inproceedings{hotho2006information,
  abstract = {Social bookmark tools are rapidly emerging on the Web. In such systems users are setting up lightweight conceptual structures called folksonomies. The reason for their immediate success is the fact that no specific skills are needed for participating. At the moment, however, the information retrieval support is limited. We present a formal model and a new search algorithm for folksonomies, called FolkRank, that exploits the structure of the folksonomy. The proposed algorithm is also applied to find communities within the folksonomy and is used to structure search results. All findings are demonstrated on a large scale dataset.},
  address = {Heidelberg},
  author = {Hotho, Andreas and Jäschke, Robert and Schmitz, Christoph and Stumme, Gerd},
  booktitle = {The Semantic Web: Research and Applications},
  editor = {Sure, York and Domingue, John},
  interhash = {10ec64d80b0ac085328a953bb494fb89},
  intrahash = {3c301945817681d637ee43901c016939},
  month = {June},
  pages = {411-426},
  publisher = {Springer},
  series = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science},
  title = {Information Retrieval in Folksonomies: Search and Ranking},
  volume = 4011,
  year = 2006
}