@inproceedings{christiaens2006metadata,
  abstract = {In this paper we give a brief overview of different metadata mechanisms (like ontologies and folksonomies) and how they relate to each other. We identify major strengths and weaknesses of these mechanisms. We claim that these mechanisms can be classified from restricted (e.g., ontology) to free (e.g., free text tagging). In our view, these mechanisms should not be used in isolation, but rather as complementary solutions, in a continuous process wherein the strong points of one increase the semantic depth of the other. We give an overview of early active research already going on in this direction and propose that methodologies to support this process be developed. We demonstrate a possible approach, in which we mix tagging, taxonomy and ontology.},
  author = {Christiaens, Stijn},
  booktitle = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science: On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: OTM 2006 Workshops},
  file = {christiaens2006metadata.pdf:christiaens2006metadata.pdf:PDF},
  groups = {public},
  interhash = {f733d993459329ed1ef9f26d303ba0d9},
  intrahash = {efc1396e845f3db1688dc8ef154d9520},
  lastdatemodified = {2007-01-04},
  lastname = {Christiaens},
  own = {notown},
  pdf = {christiaens06-metadata.pdf},
  publisher = {Springer},
  read = {notread},
  timestamp = {2007-09-11 13:31:23},
  title = {Metadata Mechanisms: From Ontology to Folksonomy ... and Back},
  url = {http://www.springerlink.com/content/m370107220473394},
  username = {dbenz},
  workshoppub = {1},
  year = 2006
}

@article{tonkin2006folksonomies,
  abstract = {A folksonomy is a type of distributed classification system. It is usually created by a group of individuals, typically the resource users. Users add tags to online items, such as images, videos, bookmarks and text. These tags are then shared and sometimes refined. In this article we look at what makes folksonomies work. We agree with the premise that tags are no replacement for formal systems, but we see this as being the core quality that makes folksonomy tagging so useful.},
  author = {Tonkin, Emma and Guy, Marieke},
  file = {tonkin2006folksonomies.pdf:tonkin2006folksonomies.pdf:PDF},
  interhash = {535e0aea1bcbd7feb85a7495f284a589},
  intrahash = {f56571b67b4e70a7d108dc8529d4c937},
  journal = {D-Lib},
  lastdatemodified = {2006-07-18},
  lastname = {Tonkin},
  location = {San Diego, California},
  month = {January},
  number = 1,
  own = {own},
  pdf = {tonkin06-folksonomies.pdf},
  read = {read},
  title = {Folksonomies: Tidying Up Tags?},
  url = {http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/Publications/pub_info.jsp?id=2000478},
  volume = 12,
  year = 2006
}

@inbook{schmitz2006kollaboratives,
  abstract = {Wissensmanagement in zentralisierten Wissensbasen erfordert einen hohen Aufwand f�r Erstellung und Wartung, und es entspricht nicht immer den Anforderungen der Benutzer. Wir geben in diesem Kapitel einen �berblick �ber zwei aktuelle Ans�tze, die durch kollaboratives Wissensmanagement diese Probleme l�sen k�nnen. Im Peer-to-Peer-Wissensmanagement unterhalten Benutzer dezentrale Wissensbasen, die dann vernetzt werden k�nnen, um andere Benutzer eigene Inhalte nutzen zu lassen. Folksonomies versprechen, die Wissensakquisition so einfach wie m�glich zu gestalten und so viele Benutzer in den Aufbau und die Pflege einer gemeinsamen Wissensbasis einzubeziehen.},
  author = {Schmitz, Christoph and Hotho, Andreas and J�schke, Robert and Stumme, Gerd},
  editor = {Pellegrini, Tassilo and Blumauer, Andreas},
  file = {schmitz2006kollaboratives.pdf:schmitz2006kollaboratives.pdf:PDF},
  interhash = {a3102df5e75137fa4a95c718f470fd39},
  intrahash = {923e175b1912828ede540759dde1700a},
  lastdatemodified = {2007-04-27},
  lastname = {Schmitz},
  longnotes = {[[http://www.semantic-web.at/springer/abstracts/3d_Schmitz_KollabWM.pdf abstract (pdf)]]},
  own = {own},
  pages = {273-290},
  pdf = {schmitz06-kollaboratives.pdf},
  publisher = {Springer},
  read = {any},
  title = {Kollaboratives Wissensmanagement},
  year = 2006
}

@article{millen2005social,
  author = {Millen, David and Feinberg, Jonathan and Kerr, Bernard},
  file = {millen2005social.pdf:millen2005social.pdf:PDF},
  interhash = {b40410a542f48202c52b6fa9408bca79},
  intrahash = {3e0eb3ac3d69194363eae0b4e1b6461d},
  journal = {Queue},
  lastdatemodified = {2006-12-04},
  lastname = {Millen},
  month = {November},
  number = 9,
  own = {notown},
  pages = {28--35},
  pdf = {millen05-social.pdf},
  read = {notread},
  title = {Social bookmarking in the enterprise},
  volume = 3,
  year = 2005
}

@article{macgregor2006collaborative,
  abstract = {Purpose � The purpose of the paper is to provide an overview of the collaborative tagging phenomenon and explore some of the reasons for its emergence. 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.  Design/methodology/approach � 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 taking a lead 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},
  file = {macgregor2006collaborative.pdf:macgregor2006collaborative.pdf:PDF},
  interhash = {8d7a458fb6f9ff722c7d02104ec6dbd0},
  intrahash = {583976b7d64ff0b140827342e73e70d2},
  journal = {Library Review},
  lastdatemodified = {2006-07-17},
  lastname = {Macgregor},
  number = 5,
  own = {own},
  pdf = {macgregor06-collaborative.pdf},
  read = {readnext},
  title = {Collaborative Tagging as a Knowledge Organisation and Resource Discovery Tool},
  url = {eprints.rclis.org/archive/00005703/},
  volume = 55,
  year = 2006
}

@misc{quintarelli2005folksonomies,
  abstract = {In recent times, an unprecedented amount of Web content has begun to be generated through web logs, wikis and other social tools thanks to lower technology and cost barriers. A new host of content creators is emerging, often individuals with the will to participate in discussions and share their ideas with like-minded people. This is to say that this increasing amount of varied, valuable content is generated by non-trained, non-expert information professionals: they are at the same time users and producers of information.  We have gone past a critical mass of connectivity between people that has introduced a new revolutionary ability to communicate, collaborate and share goods online.  To respond to these increased informational and exchange needs, new communication models are emerging and producing an incredible amount of distributed information that information management professionals, information architects, librarians and knowledge workers at large need to link, aggregate, and organize in order to extract knowledge.  The issue is whether the traditional organizational schemes used so far are suitable to address the classification needs of fast-proliferating, new information sources or if, to achieve this goal, better aggregation and concept matching tools are required.  Folksonomies attempt to provide a solution to this issue, by introducing an innovative distributed approach based on social classification.},
  author = {Quintarelli, Emanuele},
  file = {quintarelli2005folksonomies.pdf:quintarelli2005folksonomies.pdf:PDF},
  interhash = {8295fa26b7b50658f38c92b5f6e3d183},
  intrahash = {857ef9d1c4704b459f218fa967056daf},
  lastdatemodified = {2006-10-09},
  lastname = {Quintarelli},
  month = {June},
  own = {own},
  pdf = {quintarelli05-folksonomies.pdf},
  read = {read},
  title = {Folksonomies: power to the people},
  url = {http://www-dimat.unipv.it/biblio/isko/doc/folksonomies.htm},
  year = 2005
}

@misc{mathes2004folksonomies,
  abstract = {This paper examines user-generated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital media to better understand grassroots classification. Metadata - data about data - allows systems to collocate related information, and helps users find relevant information. The creation of metadata has generally been approached in two ways: professional creation and author creation. In libraries and other organizations, creating metadata, primarily in the form of catalog records, has traditionally been the domain of dedicated professionals working with complex, detailed rule sets and vocabularies. The primary problem with this approach is scalability and its impracticality for the vast amounts of content being produced and used, especially on the World Wide Web. The apparatus and tools built around professional cataloging systems are generally too complicated for anyone without specialized training and knowledge. A second approach is for metadata to be created by authors. The movement towards creator described documents was heralded by SGML, the WWW, and the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. There are problems with this approach as well - often due to inadequate or inaccurate description, or outright deception. This paper examines a third approach: user-created metadata, where users of the documents and media create metadata for their own individual use that is also shared throughout a community.},
  author = {Mathes, Adam},
  file = {mathes2004folksonomies.pdf:mathes2004folksonomies.pdf:PDF},
  interhash = {2fb667a05d8863dbb39625ed1e9d5b99},
  intrahash = {45ae9616f7c7e480384d43cb2f6aec4d},
  lastdatemodified = {2006-07-18},
  lastname = {Mathes},
  month = {December},
  own = {own},
  pdf = {mathes04-folksonomies.pdf},
  read = {read},
  title = {Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata},
  url = {http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated-communication/folksonomies.html},
  year = 2004
}

@article{golder2006structurec,
  abstract = {Collaborative tagging describes the process by which many users add metadata in the form of keywords to shared content. Recently, collaborative tagging has grown in popularity on the web, on sites that allow users to tag bookmarks, photographs and other content. In this paper we analyze the structure of collaborative tagging systems as well as their dynamical aspects. Specifically, we discovered regularities in user activity, tag frequencies, kinds of tags used, bursts of popularity in bookmarking and a remarkable stability in the relative proportions of tags within a given url. We also present a dynamical model of collaborative tagging that predicts these stable patterns and relates them to imitation and shared knowledge.},
  author = {Golder, Scott and Huberman, Bernardo A.},
  file = {golder2006structure.pdf:golder2006structure.pdf:PDF},
  groups = {public},
  interhash = {03565ad9c6fc315068e528a53ed158ae},
  intrahash = {f26e96f09d59ba7d33d5339fa5d4891b},
  journal = {Journal of Information Sciences},
  journalpub = {1},
  lastdatemodified = {2007-04-27},
  lastname = {Golder},
  month = {April},
  number = 2,
  own = {own},
  pages = {198--208},
  pdf = {golder06-structure.pdf},
  read = {readnext},
  timestamp = {2011-01-28 11:35:13},
  title = {The Structure of Collaborative Tagging Systems},
  url = {http://.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/papers/tags/index.html},
  username = {dbenz},
  volume = 32,
  year = 2006
}

@misc{gruber2005ontology,
  abstract = {Ontologies are enabling technology for the Semantic Web. They are a means for people to state what they mean by formal terms used in data that they might generate or consume. Folksonomies are an emergent phenomenon of the social web. They are created as people associate terms with content that they generate or consume. Recently the two ideas have been put into opposition, as if they were right and left poles of a political spectrum. This piece is an attempt to shed some cool light on the subject, and to preview some new work that applies the two ideas together to enable an Internet ecology for folksonomies.},
  author = {Gruber, Tom},
  file = {gruber2005ontology.pdf:gruber2005ontology.pdf:PDF},
  interhash = {95dcd92534079ba054d4301522ac45f9},
  intrahash = {3179f257b1d843da3ae1de136eec8318},
  lastdatemodified = {2006-07-19},
  lastname = {Gruber},
  longnotes = {[[http://tomgruber.org/writing/tagontology-tagcamp-talk.pdf slides(pdf)]]},
  own = {own},
  pdf = {gruber05-ontology.pdf},
  read = {readnext},
  title = {Ontology of Folksonomy},
  url = {tomgruber.org/writing/ontology-of-folksonomy.htm},
  year = 2005
}

@incollection{christiaens2006metadata,
  abstract = {In this paper we give a brief overview of different metadata mechanisms (like ontologies and folksonomies) and how they relate to each other. We identify major strengths and weaknesses of these mechanisms. We claim that these mechanisms can be classified from restricted (e.g., ontology) to free (e.g., free text tagging). In our view, these mechanisms should not be used in isolation, but rather as complementary solutions, in a continuous process wherein the strong points of one increase the semantic depth of the other. We give an overview of early active research already going on in this direction and propose that methodologies to support this process be developed. We demonstrate a possible approach, in which we mix tagging, taxonomy and ontology.},
  author = {Christiaens, Stijn},
  booktitle = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science: On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: OTM 2006 Workshops},
  file = {christiaens2006metadata.pdf:christiaens2006metadata.pdf:PDF},
  interhash = {f733d993459329ed1ef9f26d303ba0d9},
  intrahash = {efc1396e845f3db1688dc8ef154d9520},
  lastdatemodified = {2007-01-04},
  lastname = {Christiaens},
  own = {notown},
  pdf = {christiaens06-metadata.pdf},
  publisher = {Springer},
  read = {notread},
  title = {Metadata Mechanisms: From Ontology to Folksonomy ... and Back},
  url = {http://www.springerlink.com/content/m370107220473394},
  year = 2006
}

@techreport{kome2005hierarchical,
  abstract = {The growth in digital resource repositories flickr and del.icio.us, mirrors the growth of Folksonomies to support resource classification and access. Despite this phenomenon, little is known about the effectiveness of folksonomy for retrieval and organization. Little is also known about their structure and the types of semantic relationships among folksonomy terms. This study analyzes folksonomy metadata for hierarchal semantic relationships via a content analysis of approximately 2000 folksonomy tags in over 600 individual entries. The terms were classified into groups and analyzed for hierarchical relationships. The results indicate that hierarchical relationships are part of Folksonomies. The conclusion briefly explores the potential value of thesauri for Folksonomy development, and the value of Folksonomies to thesauri developers.},
  author = {Kome, Sam H.},
  file = {kome2005hierarchical.pdf:kome2005hierarchical.pdf:PDF},
  groups = {public},
  institution = {School of Information and Library Science},
  interhash = {15b120bb7d1576ef6fd2ef63668aed6a},
  intrahash = {e59c58d6b0f6b70dd8f8d1abf3a9f9fc},
  lastdatemodified = {2006-07-17},
  lastname = {Kome},
  month = {November},
  own = {own},
  pdf = {kome05-hierarchical.pdf},
  read = {readnext},
  timestamp = {2007-09-11 13:31:29},
  title = {Hierarchical Subject Relationships in Folksonomies},
  url = {hdl.handle.net/1901/238},
  username = {dbenz},
  year = 2005
}

@inproceedings{marlow2006position,
  abstract = {In recent years, tagging systems have become increasingly popular. These systems enable users to add keywords (i.e., �tags�) to Internet resources (e.g., web pages, images, videos) without relying on a controlled vocabulary. Tagging systems have the potential to improve search, spam detection, reputation systems, and personal organization while introducing new modalities of social communication and opportunities for data mining. This potential is largely due to the social structure that underlies many of the current systems. Despite the rapid expansion of applications that support tagging of resources, tagging systems are still not well studied or understood. In this paper, we provide a short description of the academic related work to date. We offer a model of tagging systems, specifically in the context of web-based systems, to help us illustrate the possible benefits of these tools. Since many such systems already exist, we provide a taxonomy of tagging systems to help inform their analysis and design, and thus enable researchers to frame and compare evidence for the sustainability of such systems. We also provide a simple taxonomy of incentives and contribution models to inform potential evaluative frameworks. While this work does not present comprehensive empirical results, we present a preliminary study of the photosharing and tagging system Flickr to demonstrate our model and explore some of the issues in one sample system. This analysis helps us outline and motivate possible future directions of research in tagging systems.},
  address = {Edinburgh, Scotland},
  author = {Marlow, Cameron and Naaman, Mor and Boyd, Danah and Davis, Marc},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the Collaborative Web Tagging Workshop at the WWW 2006},
  file = {marlow2006position.pdf:marlow2006position.pdf:PDF},
  groups = {public},
  interhash = {7446351e0d902ee4f36fb750f82c50a5},
  intrahash = {d9f433de0945351fa2157c1424d9fe67},
  lastdatemodified = {2006-07-17},
  lastname = {Marlow},
  month = May,
  own = {own},
  pdf = {marlow06-tagging.pdf},
  read = {readnext},
  timestamp = {2007-09-11 13:31:31},
  title = {{Position Paper, Tagging, Taxonomy, Flickr, Article, ToRead}},
  url = {http://.rawsugar.com/www2006/cfp.html},
  username = {dbenz},
  year = 2006
}

@inproceedings{veres2006concept,
  abstract = {The recent popularity of social software in the wake of the much hyped "Web2.0" has resulted in a flurry of activity around folksonomies, the emergent systems of classification that result from making public the individual users’ personal classifications in the form of simple free form "tags". Several approaches have emerged in the analysis of these folksonomies including mathematical approaches for clustering and identifying affinities, social theories about cultural factors in tagging, and cognitive theories about their mental underpinnings. In this paper we argue that the most useful analysis is in terms of mental phenomena since naive classification is essentially a cognitive task. We then describe a method for extracting structural properties of free form user tags, based on the linguistic properties of the tags. This reveals some deep insights in the conceptual modeling behavior of naive users. Finally we explore the usefulness of the latent structural properties of free form "tag clouds" for interoperability between folksonomies from different services.},
  author = {Veres, C.},
  booktitle = {Conceptual Modeling - ER 2006},
  file = {veres2006concept.pdf:veres2006concept.pdf:PDF},
  groups = {public},
  interhash = {ce1a0dcac78702811f22fe3dc41bc46e},
  intrahash = {13540d1afb327c09e9c894a011b6450a},
  lastdatemodified = {2007-01-08},
  lastname = {Veres},
  own = {notown},
  pages = {325--338},
  pdf = {veres06-concept.pdf},
  read = {notread},
  timestamp = {2009-09-02 13:26:48},
  title = {Concept Modeling by the Masses: Folksonomy Structure and Interoperability},
  url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11901181_25},
  username = {dbenz},
  year = 2006
}