@inproceedings{singer2015hyptrails, author = {Singer, P. and Helic, D. and Hotho, A. and Strohmaier, M.}, title = {Hyptrails: A bayesian approach for comparing hypotheses about human trails}, booktitle = {24th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW2015)}, publisher = {ACM}, address = {Firenze, Italy}, year = {2015}, url = {http://www.www2015.it/documents/proceedings/proceedings/p1003.pdf}, keywords = {2015, bibsonomy, compare, human, hypotheses, hyptrails, myown, trails, web} }

%0 = inproceedings %A = Singer, P. and Helic, D. and Hotho, A. and Strohmaier, M. %B = 24th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW2015) %C = Firenze, Italy %D = 2015 %I = ACM %T = Hyptrails: A bayesian approach for comparing hypotheses about human trails %U = http://www.www2015.it/documents/proceedings/proceedings/p1003.pdf

@inproceedings{doerfel2014evaluating, author = {Doerfel, Stephan and Zoller, Daniel and Singer, Philipp and Niebler, Thomas and Hotho, Andreas and Strohmaier, Markus}, title = {Evaluating Assumptions about Social Tagging - A Study of User Behavior
in BibSonomy}, editor = {Seidl, Thomas and Hassani, Marwan and Beecks, Christian}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 16th LWA Workshops: KDML, IR and FGWM, Aachen, Germany, September 8-10, 2014.}, publisher = {CEUR-WS.org}, year = {2014}, pages = {18--19}, url = {http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1226/paper06.pdf}, keywords = {2014, behavior, bibsonomy, myown, navigation, tagging} }

%0 = inproceedings %A = Doerfel, Stephan and Zoller, Daniel and Singer, Philipp and Niebler, Thomas and Hotho, Andreas and Strohmaier, Markus %B = Proceedings of the 16th LWA Workshops: KDML, IR and FGWM, Aachen, Germany, September 8-10, 2014. %D = 2014 %I = CEUR-WS.org %T = Evaluating Assumptions about Social Tagging - A Study of User Behavior
in BibSonomy %U = http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1226/paper06.pdf

Social tagging systems have established themselves as an important part in
day's web and have attracted the interest from our research community in a
riety of investigations. The overall vision of our community is that simply
rough interactions with the system, i.e., through tagging and sharing of
sources, users would contribute to building useful semantic structures as
ll as resource indexes using uncontrolled vocabulary not only due to the
sy-to-use mechanics. Henceforth, a variety of assumptions about social
gging systems have emerged, yet testing them has been difficult due to the
sence of suitable data. In this work we thoroughly investigate three
ailable assumptions - e.g., is a tagging system really social? - by examining
ve log data gathered from the real-world public social tagging system
bSonomy. Our empirical results indicate that while some of these assumptions
ld to a certain extent, other assumptions need to be reflected and viewed in
very critical light. Our observations have implications for the design of
ture search and other algorithms to better reflect the actual user behavior.

@techreport{doerfel2014course, author = {Doerfel, Stephan and Zoller, Daniel and Singer, Philipp and Niebler, Thomas and Hotho, Andreas and Strohmaier, Markus}, title = {Of course we share! Testing Assumptions about Social Tagging Systems}, year = {2014}, note = {cite arxiv:1401.0629}, url = {http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.0629}, keywords = {2014, analysis, assumptions, bibsonomy, data, folksonomy, log, myown, share, social, tagging, testing, weblog}, abstract = {Social tagging systems have established themselves as an important part intoday's web and have attracted the interest from our research community in avariety of investigations. The overall vision of our community is that simplythrough interactions with the system, i.e., through tagging and sharing ofresources, users would contribute to building useful semantic structures aswell as resource indexes using uncontrolled vocabulary not only due to theeasy-to-use mechanics. Henceforth, a variety of assumptions about socialtagging systems have emerged, yet testing them has been difficult due to theabsence of suitable data. In this work we thoroughly investigate threeavailable assumptions - e.g., is a tagging system really social? - by examininglive log data gathered from the real-world public social tagging systemBibSonomy. Our empirical results indicate that while some of these assumptionshold to a certain extent, other assumptions need to be reflected and viewed ina very critical light. Our observations have implications for the design offuture search and other algorithms to better reflect the actual user behavior.} }

%0 = techreport %A = Doerfel, Stephan and Zoller, Daniel and Singer, Philipp and Niebler, Thomas and Hotho, Andreas and Strohmaier, Markus %B = } %C = %D = 2014 %I = %T = Of course we share! Testing Assumptions about Social Tagging Systems} %U = http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.0629

@book{atzmueller2013ubiquitous,, title = {Ubiquitous Social Media Analysis Third International Workshops, MUSE 2012, Bristol, UK, September 24, 2012, and MSM 2012, Milwaukee, WI, USA, June 25, 2012, Revised Selected Papers}, editor = {Atzmueller, Martin and Chin, Alvin and Helic, Denis and Hotho, Andreas}, publisher = {Imprint: Springer}, address = {Berlin, Heidelberg}, year = {2013}, url = {http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-45392-2}, isbn = {9783642453915 3642453910 9783642453922 3642453929}, keywords = {2013, analysis, bibsonomy, media, myown, postproceedings, social, workshop} }

%0 = book %C = Berlin, Heidelberg %D = 2013 %I = Imprint: Springer %T = Ubiquitous Social Media Analysis Third International Workshops, MUSE 2012, Bristol, UK, September 24, 2012, and MSM 2012, Milwaukee, WI, USA, June 25, 2012, Revised Selected Papers %U = http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-45392-2

Since the rise of collaborative tagging systems on the web, the tag recommendation task - suggesting suitable tags to users of such systems while they add resources to their collection - has been tackled. However, the (offline) evaluation of tag recommendation algorithms usually suffers from difficulties like the sparseness of the data or the cold start problem for new resources or users. Previous studies therefore often used so-called post-cores (specific subsets of the original datasets) for their experiments. In this paper, we conduct a large-scale experiment in which we analyze different tag recommendation algorithms on different cores of three real-world datasets. We show, that a recommender's performance depends on the particular core and explore correlations between performances on different cores.

@inproceedings{doerfel2013analysis, author = {Doerfel, Stephan and Jäschke, Robert}, title = {An Analysis of Tag-Recommender Evaluation Procedures}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Recommender systems}, series = {RecSys '13}, publisher = {ACM}, address = {New York, NY, USA}, year = {2013}, pages = {343--346}, url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2507157.2507222}, doi = {10.1145/2507157.2507222}, isbn = {978-1-4503-2409-0}, keywords = {2013, BibSonomy, core, evaluation, iteg, itegpub, l3s, myown, recsys, tag}, abstract = {Since the rise of collaborative tagging systems on the web, the tag recommendation task -- suggesting suitable tags to users of such systems while they add resources to their collection -- has been tackled. However, the (offline) evaluation of tag recommendation algorithms usually suffers from difficulties like the sparseness of the data or the cold start problem for new resources or users. Previous studies therefore often used so-called post-cores (specific subsets of the original datasets) for their experiments. In this paper, we conduct a large-scale experiment in which we analyze different tag recommendation algorithms on different cores of three real-world datasets. We show, that a recommender's performance depends on the particular core and explore correlations between performances on different cores.} }

%0 = inproceedings %A = Doerfel, Stephan and Jäschke, Robert %B = Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Recommender systems %C = New York, NY, USA %D = 2013 %I = ACM %T = An Analysis of Tag-Recommender Evaluation Procedures %U = http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2507157.2507222

Since the rise of collaborative tagging systems on the web, the tag recommendation task - suggesting suitable tags to users of such systems while they add resources to their collection - has been tackled. However, the (offline) evaluation of tag recommendation algorithms usually suffers from difficulties like the sparseness of the data or the cold start problem for new resources or users. Previous studies therefore often used so-called post-cores (specific subsets of the original datasets) for their experiments. In this paper, we conduct a large-scale experiment in which we analyze different tag recommendation algorithms on different cores of three real-world datasets. We show, that a recommender's performance depends on the particular core and explore correlations between performances on different cores.

@inproceedings{doerfel2013analysis, author = {Doerfel, Stephan and Jäschke, Robert}, title = {An analysis of tag-recommender evaluation procedures}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Recommender systems}, series = {RecSys '13}, publisher = {ACM}, address = {New York, NY, USA}, year = {2013}, pages = {343--346}, url = {https://www.kde.cs.uni-kassel.de/pub/pdf/doerfel2013analysis.pdf}, doi = {10.1145/2507157.2507222}, isbn = {978-1-4503-2409-0}, keywords = {2013, bibsonomy, bookmarking, collaborative, core, evaluation, folkrank, folksonomy, graph, iteg, itegpub, l3s, recommender, social, tagging}, abstract = {Since the rise of collaborative tagging systems on the web, the tag recommendation task -- suggesting suitable tags to users of such systems while they add resources to their collection -- has been tackled. However, the (offline) evaluation of tag recommendation algorithms usually suffers from difficulties like the sparseness of the data or the cold start problem for new resources or users. Previous studies therefore often used so-called post-cores (specific subsets of the original datasets) for their experiments. In this paper, we conduct a large-scale experiment in which we analyze different tag recommendation algorithms on different cores of three real-world datasets. We show, that a recommender's performance depends on the particular core and explore correlations between performances on different cores.} }

%0 = inproceedings %A = Doerfel, Stephan and Jäschke, Robert %B = Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Recommender systems %C = New York, NY, USA %D = 2013 %I = ACM %T = An analysis of tag-recommender evaluation procedures %U = https://www.kde.cs.uni-kassel.de/pub/pdf/doerfel2013analysis.pdf

@article{journals/corr/MitzlaffABHS13, author = {Mitzlaff, Folke and Atzmueller, Martin and Benz, Dominik and Hotho, Andreas and Stumme, Gerd}, title = {User-Relatedness and Community Structure in Social Interaction Networks.}, journal = {CoRR}, year = {2013}, volume = {abs/1309.3888}, url = {http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/journals/corr/corr1309.html#MitzlaffABHS13}, keywords = {bibsonomy, relatedness, social, structure, user} }

%0 = article %A = Mitzlaff, Folke and Atzmueller, Martin and Benz, Dominik and Hotho, Andreas and Stumme, Gerd %D = 2013 %T = User-Relatedness and Community Structure in Social Interaction Networks. %U = http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/journals/corr/corr1309.html#MitzlaffABHS13

@proceedings{conf/recsys/2013rsweb,, title = {Proceedings of the Fifth ACM RecSys Workshop on Recommender Systems and the Social Web co-located with the 7th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys 2013), Hong Kong, China, October 13, 2013.}, editor = {Mobasher, Bamshad and Jannach, Dietmar and Geyer, Werner and Freyne, Jill and Hotho, Andreas and Anand, Sarabjot Singh and Guy, Ido}, booktitle = {RSWeb@RecSys}, series = {CEUR Workshop Proceedings}, publisher = {CEUR-WS.org}, year = {2013}, volume = {1066}, url = {http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1066}, keywords = {2013, bibsonomy, l3s, myown, recommender, social, web, workshop} }

%0 = proceedings %B = RSWeb@RecSys} %C = %D = 2013 %I = CEUR-WS.org %T = Proceedings of the Fifth ACM RecSys Workshop on Recommender Systems and the Social Web co-located with the 7th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys 2013), Hong Kong, China, October 13, 2013.} %U = http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1066

@article{sun2013social, author = {Sun, Xiaoling and Kaur, Jasleen and Milojevic, Stasa and Flammini, Alessandro and Menczer, Filippo}, title = {Social Dynamics of Science}, journal = {Sci. Rep.}, publisher = {Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved}, year = {2013}, volume = {3}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep01069}, keywords = {bibsonomy, dynamics, social} }

%0 = article %A = Sun, Xiaoling and Kaur, Jasleen and Milojevic, Stasa and Flammini, Alessandro and Menczer, Filippo %D = 2013 %I = Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved %T = Social Dynamics of Science %U = http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep01069

Soziale Tagging-Systeme gehören zu den in den vergangenen Jahren entstandenen Web2.0-Systemen. Sie ermöglichen es Anwendern, beliebige Informationen in das Internet einzustellen und untereinander auszutauschen. Je nach Anbieter verlinken Nutzer Videos, Fotos oder Webseiten und beschreiben die eingestellten Medien mit entsprechenden Schlagwörtern (Tags). Die damit einhergehende freiwillige Preisgabe oftmals persönlicher Informationen wirft Fragen im Bereich der informationellen Selbstbestimmung auf. Dieses Grundrecht gewährleistet dem Einzelnen, grundsätzlich selbst über die Preisgabe und Verwendung seiner persönlichen Daten zu bestimmen. Für viele Funktionalitäten, wie beispielsweise Empfehlungsdienste oder die Bereitstellung einer API, ist eine solche Kontrolle allerdings schwierig zu gestalten. Oftmals existieren keine Richtlinien, inwieweit Dienstanbieter und weitere Dritte diese öffentlichen Daten (und weitere Daten, die bei der Nutzung des Systems anfallen) nutzen dürfen. Dieser Artikel diskutiert anhand eines konkreten Systems typische, für den Datenschutz relevante Funktionalitäten und gibt Handlungsanweisungen für eine datenschutzkonforme technische Gestaltung.

@article{noKey, author = {Krause, Beate and Lerch, Hana and Hotho, Andreas and Roßnagel, Alexander and Stumme, Gerd}, title = {Datenschutz im Web 2.0 am Beispiel des sozialen Tagging-Systems BibSonomy}, journal = {Informatik-Spektrum}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag}, year = {2012}, volume = {35}, number = {1}, pages = {12-23}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00287-010-0485-8}, doi = {10.1007/s00287-010-0485-8}, issn = {0170-6012}, keywords = {BibSonomy, Datenschutz, Taging-System, Web, latexkurs}, abstract = {Soziale Tagging-Systeme gehören zu den in den vergangenen Jahren entstandenen Web2.0-Systemen. Sie ermöglichen es Anwendern, beliebige Informationen in das Internet einzustellen und untereinander auszutauschen. Je nach Anbieter verlinken Nutzer Videos, Fotos oder Webseiten und beschreiben die eingestellten Medien mit entsprechenden Schlagwörtern (Tags). Die damit einhergehende freiwillige Preisgabe oftmals persönlicher Informationen wirft Fragen im Bereich der informationellen Selbstbestimmung auf. Dieses Grundrecht gewährleistet dem Einzelnen, grundsätzlich selbst über die Preisgabe und Verwendung seiner persönlichen Daten zu bestimmen. Für viele Funktionalitäten, wie beispielsweise Empfehlungsdienste oder die Bereitstellung einer API, ist eine solche Kontrolle allerdings schwierig zu gestalten. Oftmals existieren keine Richtlinien, inwieweit Dienstanbieter und weitere Dritte diese öffentlichen Daten (und weitere Daten, die bei der Nutzung des Systems anfallen) nutzen dürfen. Dieser Artikel diskutiert anhand eines konkreten Systems typische, für den Datenschutz relevante Funktionalitäten und gibt Handlungsanweisungen für eine datenschutzkonforme technische Gestaltung. } }

%0 = article %A = Krause, Beate and Lerch, Hana and Hotho, Andreas and Roßnagel, Alexander and Stumme, Gerd %D = 2012 %I = Springer-Verlag %T = Datenschutz im Web 2.0 am Beispiel des sozialen Tagging-Systems BibSonomy %U = http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00287-010-0485-8

Soziale Tagging-Systeme gehören zu den in den vergangenen Jahren entstandenen Web2.0-Systemen. Sie ermöglichen es Anwendern, beliebige Informationen in das Internet einzustellen und untereinander auszutauschen. Je nach Anbieter verlinken Nutzer Videos, Fotos oder Webseiten und beschreiben die eingestellten Medien mit entsprechenden Schlagwörtern (Tags). Die damit einhergehende freiwillige Preisgabe oftmals persönlicher Informationen wirft Fragen im Bereich der informationellen Selbstbestimmung auf. Dieses Grundrecht gewährleistet dem Einzelnen, grundsätzlich selbst über die Preisgabe und Verwendung seiner persönlichen Daten zu bestimmen. Für viele Funktionalitäten, wie beispielsweise Empfehlungsdienste oder die Bereitstellung einer API, ist eine solche Kontrolle allerdings schwierig zu gestalten. Oftmals existieren keine Richtlinien, inwieweit Dienstanbieter und weitere Dritte diese öffentlichen Daten (und weitere Daten, die bei der Nutzung des Systems anfallen) nutzen dürfen. Dieser Artikel diskutiert anhand eines konkreten Systems typische, für den Datenschutz relevante Funktionalitäten und gibt Handlungsanweisungen für eine datenschutzkonforme technische Gestaltung.

@article{noKey, author = {Krause, Beate and Lerch, Hana and Hotho, Andreas and Roßnagel, Alexander and Stumme, Gerd}, title = {Datenschutz im Web 2.0 am Beispiel des sozialen Tagging-Systems BibSonomy}, journal = {Informatik-Spektrum}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag}, year = {2012}, volume = {35}, number = {1}, pages = {12-23}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00287-010-0485-8}, doi = {10.1007/s00287-010-0485-8}, issn = {0170-6012}, keywords = {bibsonomy, latexkurs, puma, web2.0}, abstract = {Soziale Tagging-Systeme gehören zu den in den vergangenen Jahren entstandenen Web2.0-Systemen. Sie ermöglichen es Anwendern, beliebige Informationen in das Internet einzustellen und untereinander auszutauschen. Je nach Anbieter verlinken Nutzer Videos, Fotos oder Webseiten und beschreiben die eingestellten Medien mit entsprechenden Schlagwörtern (Tags). Die damit einhergehende freiwillige Preisgabe oftmals persönlicher Informationen wirft Fragen im Bereich der informationellen Selbstbestimmung auf. Dieses Grundrecht gewährleistet dem Einzelnen, grundsätzlich selbst über die Preisgabe und Verwendung seiner persönlichen Daten zu bestimmen. Für viele Funktionalitäten, wie beispielsweise Empfehlungsdienste oder die Bereitstellung einer API, ist eine solche Kontrolle allerdings schwierig zu gestalten. Oftmals existieren keine Richtlinien, inwieweit Dienstanbieter und weitere Dritte diese öffentlichen Daten (und weitere Daten, die bei der Nutzung des Systems anfallen) nutzen dürfen. Dieser Artikel diskutiert anhand eines konkreten Systems typische, für den Datenschutz relevante Funktionalitäten und gibt Handlungsanweisungen für eine datenschutzkonforme technische Gestaltung. } }

%0 = article %A = Krause, Beate and Lerch, Hana and Hotho, Andreas and Roßnagel, Alexander and Stumme, Gerd %D = 2012 %I = Springer-Verlag %T = Datenschutz im Web 2.0 am Beispiel des sozialen Tagging-Systems BibSonomy %U = http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00287-010-0485-8

Soziale Tagging-Systeme gehören zu den in den vergangenen Jahren entstandenen Web2.0-Systemen. Sie ermöglichen es Anwendern, beliebige Informationen in das Internet einzustellen und untereinander auszutauschen. Je nach Anbieter verlinken Nutzer Videos, Fotos oder Webseiten und beschreiben die eingestellten Medien mit entsprechenden Schlagwörtern (Tags). Die damit einhergehende freiwillige Preisgabe oftmals persönlicher Informationen wirft Fragen im Bereich der informationellen Selbstbestimmung auf. Dieses Grundrecht gewährleistet dem Einzelnen, grundsätzlich selbst über die Preisgabe und Verwendung seiner persönlichen Daten zu bestimmen. Für viele Funktionalitäten, wie beispielsweise Empfehlungsdienste oder die Bereitstellung einer API, ist eine solche Kontrolle allerdings schwierig zu gestalten. Oftmals existieren keine Richtlinien, inwieweit Dienstanbieter und weitere Dritte diese öffentlichen Daten (und weitere Daten, die bei der Nutzung des Systems anfallen) nutzen dürfen. Dieser Artikel diskutiert anhand eines konkreten Systems typische, für den Datenschutz relevante Funktionalitäten und gibt Handlungsanweisungen für eine datenschutzkonforme technische Gestaltung.

@article{noKey, author = {Krause, Beate and Lerch, Hana and Hotho, Andreas and Roßnagel, Alexander and Stumme, Gerd}, title = {Datenschutz im Web 2.0 am Beispiel des sozialen Tagging-Systems BibSonomy}, journal = {Informatik-Spektrum}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag}, year = {2012}, volume = {35}, number = {1}, pages = {12-23}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00287-010-0485-8}, doi = {10.1007/s00287-010-0485-8}, issn = {0170-6012}, keywords = {bibsonomy, latexkurs, web2.0}, abstract = {Soziale Tagging-Systeme gehören zu den in den vergangenen Jahren entstandenen Web2.0-Systemen. Sie ermöglichen es Anwendern, beliebige Informationen in das Internet einzustellen und untereinander auszutauschen. Je nach Anbieter verlinken Nutzer Videos, Fotos oder Webseiten und beschreiben die eingestellten Medien mit entsprechenden Schlagwörtern (Tags). Die damit einhergehende freiwillige Preisgabe oftmals persönlicher Informationen wirft Fragen im Bereich der informationellen Selbstbestimmung auf. Dieses Grundrecht gewährleistet dem Einzelnen, grundsätzlich selbst über die Preisgabe und Verwendung seiner persönlichen Daten zu bestimmen. Für viele Funktionalitäten, wie beispielsweise Empfehlungsdienste oder die Bereitstellung einer API, ist eine solche Kontrolle allerdings schwierig zu gestalten. Oftmals existieren keine Richtlinien, inwieweit Dienstanbieter und weitere Dritte diese öffentlichen Daten (und weitere Daten, die bei der Nutzung des Systems anfallen) nutzen dürfen. Dieser Artikel diskutiert anhand eines konkreten Systems typische, für den Datenschutz relevante Funktionalitäten und gibt Handlungsanweisungen für eine datenschutzkonforme technische Gestaltung. } }

%0 = article %A = Krause, Beate and Lerch, Hana and Hotho, Andreas and Roßnagel, Alexander and Stumme, Gerd %D = 2012 %I = Springer-Verlag %T = Datenschutz im Web 2.0 am Beispiel des sozialen Tagging-Systems BibSonomy %U = http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00287-010-0485-8

Soziale Tagging-Systeme gehören zu den in den vergangenen Jahren entstandenen Web2.0-Systemen. Sie ermöglichen es Anwendern, beliebige Informationen in das Internet einzustellen und untereinander auszutauschen. Je nach Anbieter verlinken Nutzer Videos, Fotos oder Webseiten und beschreiben die eingestellten Medien mit entsprechenden Schlagwörtern (Tags). Die damit einhergehende freiwillige Preisgabe oftmals persönlicher Informationen wirft Fragen im Bereich der informationellen Selbstbestimmung auf. Dieses Grundrecht gewährleistet dem Einzelnen, grundsätzlich selbst über die Preisgabe und Verwendung seiner persönlichen Daten zu bestimmen. Für viele Funktionalitäten, wie beispielsweise Empfehlungsdienste oder die Bereitstellung einer API, ist eine solche Kontrolle allerdings schwierig zu gestalten. Oftmals existieren keine Richtlinien, inwieweit Dienstanbieter und weitere Dritte diese öffentlichen Daten (und weitere Daten, die bei der Nutzung des Systems anfallen) nutzen dürfen. Dieser Artikel diskutiert anhand eines konkreten Systems typische, für den Datenschutz relevante Funktionalitäten und gibt Handlungsanweisungen für eine datenschutzkonforme technische Gestaltung.

@article{noKey, author = {Krause, Beate and Lerch, Hana and Hotho, Andreas and Roßnagel, Alexander and Stumme, Gerd}, title = {Datenschutz im Web 2.0 am Beispiel des sozialen Tagging-Systems BibSonomy}, journal = {Informatik-Spektrum}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag}, year = {2012}, volume = {35}, number = {1}, pages = {12-23}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00287-010-0485-8}, doi = {10.1007/s00287-010-0485-8}, issn = {0170-6012}, keywords = {bibsonomy, latexkurs, puma, web2.0}, abstract = {Soziale Tagging-Systeme gehören zu den in den vergangenen Jahren entstandenen Web2.0-Systemen. Sie ermöglichen es Anwendern, beliebige Informationen in das Internet einzustellen und untereinander auszutauschen. Je nach Anbieter verlinken Nutzer Videos, Fotos oder Webseiten und beschreiben die eingestellten Medien mit entsprechenden Schlagwörtern (Tags). Die damit einhergehende freiwillige Preisgabe oftmals persönlicher Informationen wirft Fragen im Bereich der informationellen Selbstbestimmung auf. Dieses Grundrecht gewährleistet dem Einzelnen, grundsätzlich selbst über die Preisgabe und Verwendung seiner persönlichen Daten zu bestimmen. Für viele Funktionalitäten, wie beispielsweise Empfehlungsdienste oder die Bereitstellung einer API, ist eine solche Kontrolle allerdings schwierig zu gestalten. Oftmals existieren keine Richtlinien, inwieweit Dienstanbieter und weitere Dritte diese öffentlichen Daten (und weitere Daten, die bei der Nutzung des Systems anfallen) nutzen dürfen. Dieser Artikel diskutiert anhand eines konkreten Systems typische, für den Datenschutz relevante Funktionalitäten und gibt Handlungsanweisungen für eine datenschutzkonforme technische Gestaltung. } }

%0 = article %A = Krause, Beate and Lerch, Hana and Hotho, Andreas and Roßnagel, Alexander and Stumme, Gerd %D = 2012 %I = Springer-Verlag %T = Datenschutz im Web 2.0 am Beispiel des sozialen Tagging-Systems BibSonomy %U = http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00287-010-0485-8

Web 2.0 technologies are finding their way into academics: specialized social bookmarking services allow researchers to store and share scientific literature online. By bookmarking and tagging articles, academic prosumers generate new information about resources, i.e. usage statistics and content description of scientific journals. Given the lack of global download statistics, the authors propose the application of social bookmarking data to journal evaluation. For a set of 45 physics journals all 13,608 bookmarks from CiteULike, Connotea and BibSonomy to documents published between 2004 and 2008 were analyzed. This article explores bookmarking data in STM and examines in how far it can be used to describe the perception of periodicals by the readership. Four basic indicators are defined, which analyze different aspects of usage: Usage Ratio, Usage Diffusion, Article Usage Intensity and Journal Usage Intensity. Tags are analyzed to describe a reader-specific view on journal content.

@article{haustein2011applying, author = {Haustein, Stefanie and Siebenlist, Tobias}, title = {Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage }, journal = {Journal of Informetrics }, year = {2011}, volume = {5}, number = {3}, pages = {446 - 457}, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157711000393}, doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.04.002}, issn = {1751-1577}, keywords = {bibsonomy, bookmarking, citations, scientometrics, social, tagging}, abstract = {Web 2.0 technologies are finding their way into academics: specialized social bookmarking services allow researchers to store and share scientific literature online. By bookmarking and tagging articles, academic prosumers generate new information about resources, i.e. usage statistics and content description of scientific journals. Given the lack of global download statistics, the authors propose the application of social bookmarking data to journal evaluation. For a set of 45 physics journals all 13,608 bookmarks from CiteULike, Connotea and BibSonomy to documents published between 2004 and 2008 were analyzed. This article explores bookmarking data in STM and examines in how far it can be used to describe the perception of periodicals by the readership. Four basic indicators are defined, which analyze different aspects of usage: Usage Ratio, Usage Diffusion, Article Usage Intensity and Journal Usage Intensity. Tags are analyzed to describe a reader-specific view on journal content. } }

%0 = article %A = Haustein, Stefanie and Siebenlist, Tobias %D = 2011 %T = Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage %U = http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157711000393

Social resource sharing systems are central elements of the Web 2.0 and use the same kind of lightweight knowledge representation, called folksonomy. Their large user communities and ever-growing networks of user-generated content have made them an attractive object of investigation for researchers from different disciplines like Social Network Analysis, Data Mining, Information Retrieval or Knowledge Discovery. In this paper, we summarize and extend our work on different aspects of this branch of Web 2.0 research, demonstrated and evaluated within our own social bookmark and publication sharing system BibSonomy, which is currently among the three most popular systems of its kind. We structure this presentation along the different interaction phases of a user with our system, coupling the relevant research questions of each phase with the corresponding implementation issues. This approach reveals in a systematic fashion important aspects and results of the broad bandwidth of folksonomy research like capturing of emergent semantics, spam detection, ranking algorithms, analogies to search engine log data, personalized tag recommendations and information extraction techniques. We conclude that when integrating a real-life application like BibSonomy into research, certain constraints have to be considered; but in general, the tight interplay between our scientific work and the running system has made BibSonomy a valuable platform for demonstrating and evaluating Web 2.0 research.

@article{benz2010social, author = {Benz, D and Hotho, A and Jaschke, R and Krause, B and Mitzlaff, F and Schmitz, C and Stumme, G}, title = {The social bookmark and publication management system bibsonomy A platform for evaluating and demonstrating Web 2.0 research}, journal = {VLDB JOURNAL}, year = {2010}, volume = {19}, number = {6}, keywords = {bibsonomy}, abstract = {Social resource sharing systems are central elements of the Web 2.0 and use the same kind of lightweight knowledge representation, called folksonomy. Their large user communities and ever-growing networks of user-generated content have made them an attractive object of investigation for researchers from different disciplines like Social Network Analysis, Data Mining, Information Retrieval or Knowledge Discovery. In this paper, we summarize and extend our work on different aspects of this branch of Web 2.0 research, demonstrated and evaluated within our own social bookmark and publication sharing system BibSonomy, which is currently among the three most popular systems of its kind. We structure this presentation along the different interaction phases of a user with our system, coupling the relevant research questions of each phase with the corresponding implementation issues. This approach reveals in a systematic fashion important aspects and results of the broad bandwidth of folksonomy research like capturing of emergent semantics, spam detection, ranking algorithms, analogies to search engine log data, personalized tag recommendations and information extraction techniques. We conclude that when integrating a real-life application like BibSonomy into research, certain constraints have to be considered; but in general, the tight interplay between our scientific work and the running system has made BibSonomy a valuable platform for demonstrating and evaluating Web 2.0 research.} }

%0 = article %A = Benz, D and Hotho, A and Jaschke, R and Krause, B and Mitzlaff, F and Schmitz, C and Stumme, G %D = 2010 %T = The social bookmark and publication management system bibsonomy A platform for evaluating and demonstrating Web 2.0 research

The PUMA project fosters the Open Access movement und aims at a better support of the researcher’s publication work. PUMA stands for an integrated solution, where the upload of a publication results automatically in an update of both the personal and institutional homepage, the creation of an entry in a social bookmarking systems like BibSonomy, an entry in the academic reporting system of the university, and its publication in the institutional repository. In this poster, we present the main features of our solution.

@incollection{benz2010academic, author = {Benz, Dominik and Hotho, Andreas and Jäschke, Robert and Stumme, Gerd and Halle, Axel and Gerlach Sanches Lima, Angela and Steenweg, Helge and Stefani, Sven}, title = {Academic Publication Management with PUMA – Collect, Organize and Share Publications}, editor = {Lalmas, Mounia and Jose, Joemon and Rauber, Andreas and Sebastiani, Fabrizio and Frommholz, Ingo}, booktitle = {Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries}, series = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science}, publisher = {Springer Berlin Heidelberg}, year = {2010}, volume = {6273}, pages = {417-420}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15464-5_46}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-15464-5_46}, isbn = {978-3-642-15463-8}, keywords = {2010, bibsonomy, myown, publikationsmanagment, puma}, abstract = {The PUMA project fosters the Open Access movement und aims at a better support of the researcher’s publication work. PUMA stands for an integrated solution, where the upload of a publication results automatically in an update of both the personal and institutional homepage, the creation of an entry in a social bookmarking systems like BibSonomy, an entry in the academic reporting system of the university, and its publication in the institutional repository. In this poster, we present the main features of our solution.} }

%0 = incollection %A = Benz, Dominik and Hotho, Andreas and Jäschke, Robert and Stumme, Gerd and Halle, Axel and Gerlach Sanches Lima, Angela and Steenweg, Helge and Stefani, Sven %B = Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries %D = 2010 %I = Springer Berlin Heidelberg %T = Academic Publication Management with PUMA – Collect, Organize and Share Publications %U = http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15464-5_46

Social resource sharing systems are central elements of the Web 2.0 and use the same kind of lightweight knowledge representation, called folksonomy. Their large user communities and ever-growing networks of user-generated content have made them an attractive object of investigation for researchers from different disciplines like Social Network Analysis, Data Mining, Information Retrieval or Knowledge Discovery. In this paper, we summarize and extend our work on different aspects of this branch of Web 2.0 research, demonstrated and evaluated within our own social bookmark and publication sharing system BibSonomy, which is currently among the three most popular systems of its kind. We structure this presentation along the different interaction phases of a user with our system, coupling the relevant research questions of each phase with the corresponding implementation issues. This approach reveals in a systematic fashion important aspects and results of the broad bandwidth of folksonomy research like capturing of emergent semantics, spam detection, ranking algorithms, analogies to search engine log data, personalized tag recommendations and information extraction techniques. We conclude that when integrating a real-life application like BibSonomy into research, certain constraints have to be considered; but in general, the tight interplay between our scientific work and the running system has made BibSonomy a valuable platform for demonstrating and evaluating Web 2.0 research.

@article{Benz:2010:SBP:1921763.1921804, author = {Benz, Dominik and Hotho, Andreas and Jäschke, Robert and Krause, Beate and Mitzlaff, Folke and Schmitz, Christoph and Stumme, Gerd}, title = {The Social Bookmark and Publication Management System Bibsonomy}, journal = {The VLDB Journal}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.}, address = {Secaucus, NJ, USA}, year = {2010}, volume = {19}, number = {6}, pages = {849--875}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00778-010-0208-4}, doi = {10.1007/s00778-010-0208-4}, issn = {1066-8888}, keywords = {bibsonomy, bookmark, management, myown, publication, publicationmanagment, publikationsmanagment, social}, abstract = {Social resource sharing systems are central elements of the Web 2.0 and use the same kind of lightweight knowledge representation, called folksonomy. Their large user communities and ever-growing networks of user-generated content have made them an attractive object of investigation for researchers from different disciplines like Social Network Analysis, Data Mining, Information Retrieval or Knowledge Discovery. In this paper, we summarize and extend our work on different aspects of this branch of Web 2.0 research, demonstrated and evaluated within our own social bookmark and publication sharing system BibSonomy, which is currently among the three most popular systems of its kind. We structure this presentation along the different interaction phases of a user with our system, coupling the relevant research questions of each phase with the corresponding implementation issues. This approach reveals in a systematic fashion important aspects and results of the broad bandwidth of folksonomy research like capturing of emergent semantics, spam detection, ranking algorithms, analogies to search engine log data, personalized tag recommendations and information extraction techniques. We conclude that when integrating a real-life application like BibSonomy into research, certain constraints have to be considered; but in general, the tight interplay between our scientific work and the running system has made BibSonomy a valuable platform for demonstrating and evaluating Web 2.0 research.} }

%0 = article %A = Benz, Dominik and Hotho, Andreas and Jäschke, Robert and Krause, Beate and Mitzlaff, Folke and Schmitz, Christoph and Stumme, Gerd %C = Secaucus, NJ, USA %D = 2010 %I = Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. %T = The Social Bookmark and Publication Management System Bibsonomy %U = http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00778-010-0208-4

An den Hochschulen kommt der Förderung einer zeitgemäßen Publikationsumgebung steigende Bedeutung zu. Die Interessenlage ist vielschichtig. Autoren möchten eine komfortable Arbeitsumgebung, die Hochschulpräsidien benötigen Forschungsinformationen und die Bibliotheken wollen passende Informationsinfrastrukturen bereitzustellen. An der Universität Kassel wurde ausgehend vom Bedürfnis des wissenschaftlichen Autors in einem Pilotprojekt (PUMA) versucht, diese Interessen zu einem Publikationsmanagement zu vereinbaren. Für den Autor wird in PUMA bei deutlich geringerem Einsatz ein erheblicher Mehrwert dadurch generiert, dass bei nur einmaligen Anmelden mit dem Bibliotheks-Account ein Social-Bookmarking-System (BibSonomy) zur Verfügung steht, automatisiert Informationen an den Forschungsbericht weitergegeben, Metadaten und Dateien in Repositorien gestellt und Schriftenverzeichnisse (Curriculum Vitae) für Homepages etc. erstellt werden können.

@article{steenweg2010publikationsmanagement, author = {Steenweg, Helge}, title = {Publikationsmanagement - eine wichtige zukünftige Aufgabe an Hochschulen. Wie sind Forschungsbericht, Institutional Repository und die Interessen des wissenschaftlichen Autors vereinbar? - Das Projekt PUMA}, journal = {ABI-Technik}, year = {2010}, volume = {30}, number = {2}, pages = {130-138.}, keywords = {2010, Institutional, autor, bibliothek, bibsonomy, forschungsbericht, myown, publikationsmanagement, publikationswesen, puma, repository, ub, universitätsbibliothek}, abstract = {An den Hochschulen kommt der Förderung einer zeitgemäßen Publikationsumgebung steigende Bedeutung zu. Die Interessenlage ist vielschichtig. Autoren möchten eine komfortable Arbeitsumgebung, die Hochschulpräsidien benötigen Forschungsinformationen und die Bibliotheken wollen passende Informationsinfrastrukturen bereitzustellen. An der Universität Kassel wurde ausgehend vom Bedürfnis des wissenschaftlichen Autors in einem Pilotprojekt (PUMA) versucht, diese Interessen zu einem Publikationsmanagement zu vereinbaren. Für den Autor wird in PUMA bei deutlich geringerem Einsatz ein erheblicher Mehrwert dadurch generiert, dass bei nur einmaligen Anmelden mit dem Bibliotheks-Account ein Social-Bookmarking-System (BibSonomy) zur Verfügung steht, automatisiert Informationen an den Forschungsbericht weitergegeben, Metadaten und Dateien in Repositorien gestellt und Schriftenverzeichnisse (Curriculum Vitae) für Homepages etc. erstellt werden können.} }

%0 = article %A = Steenweg, Helge %D = 2010 %T = Publikationsmanagement - eine wichtige zukünftige Aufgabe an Hochschulen. Wie sind Forschungsbericht, Institutional Repository und die Interessen des wissenschaftlichen Autors vereinbar? - Das Projekt PUMA

@inproceedings{heckner2009personal, author = {Heckner, Markus and Heilemann, Michael and Wolff, Christian}, title = {Personal Information Management vs. Resource Sharing: Towards a Model of Information Behaviour in Social Tagging Systems}, booktitle = {Int'l AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM)}, address = {San Jose, CA, USA}, year = {2009}, keywords = {bibsonomy, folksonomy, information, management, motivation, social, tagging, toread} }

%0 = inproceedings %A = Heckner, Markus and Heilemann, Michael and Wolff, Christian %B = Int'l AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM) %C = San Jose, CA, USA %D = 2009 %T = Personal Information Management vs. Resource Sharing: Towards a Model of Information Behaviour in Social Tagging Systems

The great success of Web 2.0 is mainly fuelled by an infrastructure that allows web users to create, share, tag, and connect content and knowledge easily. The tools for developing structured knowledge in this manner have started to appear as well. However, there are few, if any, user studies that are aimed at understanding what users expect from such tools, what works and what doesn't. We organized the Collaborative Knowledge Construction (CKC) Challenge to assess the state of the art for the tools that support collaborative processes for creation of various forms of structured knowledge. The goal of the Challenge was to get users to try out different tools and to learn what users expect from such tools-features that users need, features that they like or dislike. The Challenge task was to construct structured knowledge for a portal that would provide information about research. The Challenge design contained several incentives for users to participate. Forty-nine users registered for the Challenge; thirty-three of them participated actively by using the tools. We collected extensive feedback from the users where they discussed their thoughts on all the tools that they tried. In this paper, we present the results of the Challenge, discuss the features that users expect from tools for collaborative knowledge constructions, the features on which Challenge participants disagreed, and the lessons that we learned.

@article{noy2008challenge, author = {Noy, N F and Chugh, A and Alani, H}, title = {The CKC Challenge: Exploring Tools for Collaborative Knowledge Construction}, journal = {IEEE Intell Syst}, year = {2008}, volume = {23}, number = {1}, pages = {64-68}, url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3966208/}, doi = {10.1109/MIS.2008.14}, keywords = {aboutBibSonomy, bibsonomy, challenge, ckc, expectation, tagging, tools, user}, abstract = {The great success of Web 2.0 is mainly fuelled by an infrastructure that allows web users to create, share, tag, and connect content and knowledge easily. The tools for developing structured knowledge in this manner have started to appear as well. However, there are few, if any, user studies that are aimed at understanding what users expect from such tools, what works and what doesn't. We organized the Collaborative Knowledge Construction (CKC) Challenge to assess the state of the art for the tools that support collaborative processes for creation of various forms of structured knowledge. The goal of the Challenge was to get users to try out different tools and to learn what users expect from such tools-features that users need, features that they like or dislike. The Challenge task was to construct structured knowledge for a portal that would provide information about research. The Challenge design contained several incentives for users to participate. Forty-nine users registered for the Challenge; thirty-three of them participated actively by using the tools. We collected extensive feedback from the users where they discussed their thoughts on all the tools that they tried. In this paper, we present the results of the Challenge, discuss the features that users expect from tools for collaborative knowledge constructions, the features on which Challenge participants disagreed, and the lessons that we learned.} }

%0 = article %A = Noy, N F and Chugh, A and Alani, H %D = 2008 %T = The CKC Challenge: Exploring Tools for Collaborative Knowledge Construction %U = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3966208/