《电子商务 E-business》阅读文献：ConTag A Semantic Tag Recommendation System

ConTag: A Semantic Tag Recommendation System Benjamin Adrian,2, Leo Sauermann2, Thomas Roth-Berghofer' (Knowledge-Based Systems Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Kaiserslautern, P.O. Box 3049, 67653 Kaiserslautern) 2(German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence DFKI Gmbh Trippstadter StraBe 122, 67663 Kaiserslautern germany firstname lastname@dfki.de) uments based on Semantic Web ontologies and Web 2.0 services. We designed and im- plemented a process to normalize documents to RDF format, extract document topics using Web 2.0 services and finally match extracted topics to a Semantic Web ontology Due to ConTag we are able to show that the information provided by Web 2.0 services n combination with a Semantic Web ontology enables the generation of relevant se- mantic tag recommendations for documents The main contribution of this work is semantic tag recommendation process based on a choreography of Web 2.0 services Key Words: Ontology, Web 2.0, Semantic Web, Social Software, Tagging Category: H 1. 1, H.3.3 1 Introduction In this paper we describe ConTag, a recommendation system to tag or anno- tate documents with concepts of a Semantic Web ontology In ConTag, Web 2.0 services providing text and term analysis functions such as phrase extraction dictionaries, thesauri, classifications and term associations are used to extract the information content of a document. This approach shows that the conver gence of Web 2.0 and Semantic Web is worthwhile regarding Web 2.0 tagging nd Semantic Web ontologies. The information provided by Web 2.0 services ombined with a Semantic Web ontology enables us to recommend semantic tags for documents In Section 2, we explain the state of the art of tagging in a Semantic Web environment. Section 3 describes the architecture of Con Tag. including different possibilies of retrieving relevant similarities between document topics and onto ogy instances. Section 4 provides concrete implementation details. It illustrates the extraction of document topics based on Web 2.0 services and the recommen- dation of similar ontology instances as semantic tags. The evaluation in Sec- tion 5 confirms the statement that the information provided by Web 2.0 services in combination with a Semantic Web ontology enables the generation of relevant semantic tag recommendations for documents. Finally, Section 6 summarizes the approach and denotes future goals

ConTag: A Semantic Tag Recommendation System Benjamin Adrian1,2 , Leo Sauermann2 , Thomas Roth-Berghofer1,2 1 (Knowledge-Based Systems Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Kaiserslautern, P.O. Box 3049, 67653 Kaiserslautern) 2 (German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence DFKI GmbH, Trippstadter Straße 122, 67663 Kaiserslautern Germany, firstname.lastname@dfki.de) Abstract: ConTag is an approach to generate semantic tag recommendations for doc￾uments based on Semantic Web ontologies and Web 2.0 services. We designed and im￾plemented a process to normalize documents to RDF format, extract document topics using Web 2.0 services and finally match extracted topics to a Semantic Web ontology. Due to ConTag we are able to show that the information provided by Web 2.0 services in combination with a Semantic Web ontology enables the generation of relevant se￾mantic tag recommendations for documents. The main contribution of this work is a semantic tag recommendation process based on a choreography of Web 2.0 services. Key Words: Ontology, Web 2.0, Semantic Web, Social Software, Tagging Category: H.1.1, H.3.3 1 Introduction In this paper we describe ConTag, a recommendation system to tag or anno￾tate documents with concepts of a Semantic Web ontology. In ConTag, Web 2.0 services providing text and term analysis functions such as phrase extraction, dictionaries, thesauri, classifications and term associations are used to extract the information content of a document. This approach shows that the conver￾gence of Web 2.0 and Semantic Web is worthwhile regarding Web 2.0 tagging and Semantic Web ontologies. The information provided by Web 2.0 services combined with a Semantic Web ontology enables us to recommend semantic tags for documents. In Section 2, we explain the state of the art of tagging in a Semantic Web environment. Section 3 describes the architecture of ConTag, including different possibilies of retrieving relevant similarities between document topics and ontol￾ogy instances. Section 4 provides concrete implementation details. It illustrates the extraction of document topics based on Web 2.0 services and the recommen￾dation of similar ontology instances as semantic tags. The evaluation in Sec￾tion 5 confirms the statement that the information provided by Web 2.0 services in combination with a Semantic Web ontology enables the generation of relevant semantic tag recommendations for documents. Finally, Section 6 summarizes the approach and denotes future goals

2 Related work ConTag generates tag recommendations based on an underlying Semantic Web ontology. The recommendations may be used, e.g in a Semantic Desktop appli- cation for classifying documents with a personal information model. Tag recom- mendations are generated by using existing Web 2.0 services. At the moment, we are not aware of any other system performing this task. Therefore we describe the state of the art of tagging in semantic environments The haystack project Quan et al., 2003 was an early approach of Personal ble to the Personal Information Model Ontology(PIMO)[Sauermann, il Information Management developed with Semantic Web techniques compa NEPOMUK- The Social Semantic Desktop is a project using and building on experiences with gnosis and the PIMO language/ontology. Tagging systems such as the bookmarking manager del icio us, the reference manager Connotea Lund et al., 2005] or the photo sharing service flickr, enable users to annotate documents with self defined keywords called tags The studies [Golder and Huberman, 2005 and [Kipp and Campbell, 2006 point out patterns in tagging systems. Tags are more than just keywords but symbols for personal concepts. They also point kisting semantic difficul- ties such as managing polysemies and synonyms. In an analysis of tag us- age, [ Sen et al., 2006 demanded private tags in tagging systems to be used as personal concepts. Bridging the gap beteen tags and ontologies, the ap- proach of Schmitz, 2006 described the development of ontologies based on tag usages. The general problem of relating tags and ontologies based on social services is called Folksonomy [Wal, 2004. In order to define tags in Semantic Web ontologies, Richard Newman introduced a first idea of a tagging ontology in Newman, 2005. Existing folksonomies are mined for association rules to re- trieve semantic relations between tags using co-occurances [ Schmitz et al., 2006 Piggy Bank [Huynh et al., 2005, CREAM [Handschuh and Staab, 2003 and An note [Kahan and Koivunen, 2001] provide RDF compliant tag or annotation repositories. Bloehdorn and Hotho, 2004 describes techniques to optimize text classification using semantic information As a result of this state of the art analysis, it can be said that by now it is possible to annotate documents with tags, being symbols for personal con cepts. These expressions may be stored as semantic relations in a semantic web ontology. http://nepomuk.semanticdesktop.org tp:/ /delicio.us http://www.flickr.com

2 Related Work ConTag generates tag recommendations based on an underlying Semantic Web ontology. The recommendations may be used, e.g in a Semantic Desktop appli￾cation for classifying documents with a personal information model. Tag recom￾mendations are generated by using existing Web 2.0 services. At the moment, we are not aware of any other system performing this task. Therefore we describe the state of the art of tagging in semantic environments. The haystack project [Quan et al., 2003] was an early approach of Personal Information Management developed with Semantic Web techniques compara￾ble to the Personal Information Model Ontology (PIMO) [Sauermann, 2006]. NEPOMUK - The Social Semantic Desktop1 is a project using and building on experiences with gnowsis and the PIMO language/ontology. Tagging systems such as the bookmarking manager del.icio.us2 , the reference manager Connotea [Lund et al., 2005] or the photo sharing service flickr 3 , enable users to annotate documents with self defined keywords called tags. The studies [Golder and Huberman, 2005] and [Kipp and Campbell, 2006] point out patterns in tagging systems. Tags are more than just keywords but symbols for personal concepts. They also point out existing semantic difficul￾ties such as managing polysemies and synonyms. In an analysis of tag us￾age, [Sen et al., 2006] demanded private tags in tagging systems to be used as personal concepts. Bridging the gap beteen tags and ontologies, the ap￾proach of [Schmitz, 2006] described the development of ontologies based on tag usages. The general problem of relating tags and ontologies based on social services is called Folksonomy [Wal, 2004]. In order to define tags in Semantic Web ontologies, Richard Newman introduced a first idea of a tagging ontology in [Newman, 2005]. Existing folksonomies are mined for association rules to re￾trieve semantic relations between tags using co-occurances [Schmitz et al., 2006]. PiggyBank [Huynh et al., 2005], CREAM [Handschuh and Staab, 2003] and An￾notea [Kahan and Koivunen, 2001] provide RDF compliant tag or annotation repositories. [Bloehdorn and Hotho, 2004] describes techniques to optimize text classification using semantic information. As a result of this state of the art analysis, it can be said that by now it is possible to annotate documents with tags, being symbols for personal con￾cepts. These expressions may be stored as semantic relations in a semantic web ontology. 1 http://nepomuk.semanticdesktop.org 2 http://del.icio.us 3 http://www.flickr.com

3 The semantic tag recommendation system ConTag In order to generate tag recommendations we used concepts formalized in PIMO vocabulary. In PIMO, concepts are separated between the two classes Thing (e. g. persons, events, locations, etc )and ResourceManifestation(music files, documents,etc).A relation occurrence connects Things to ResourceManifes tations, using the following semantic: A thing occurs in a document. Instances in a PIMO ontology are called things. Entities occurring in documents, are called topics. Expressing relevant similarities between things and topics may assume four different shapes in Con Equivalence a topic corresponds directly to a thing. Classification If a topic's class corresponds directly to an ontology class, the topic is recommended as new thing of the ontology class Superordination If a topic's class does not correspond to any ontology class he topic is recommended as new thing of a new ontology class Relation If a topic is semantically related to a thing without being equivalent a suitable relationship between topic and thing should be proposed In the actual version of Con Tag we focus on realising the similarity case equina- lence. Other semantic relations can be found in Horak, 2006 and are discussed in future work Generally, the idea of using things as tags(instead of labels) entails some asic advantages. Things are identified by URIs and labeled by rdfs: label or alternative labels pimo: altLabel. This design overcomes existing semantic problems such as synonyms, homonyms, acronyms and different spelling, which current tagging systems suffer, by separating the tags label from its identifica- tion. Additionally, things may possess a set of further describing rdF properties providing the capability to better retrieve similarities Con Tag is based on a Semantic Tag Recommendation Process(see Fig. 1) 1. During the first step, Normalisation, the document's content is tranformed to RDF format to gain a fulltext description. We use the Apertureframework to extract data and metadata such as author. creator and creation date 2. During the second step, Topic Ertraction, topics are extracted by requesting Web 2.0 services. This results in a topic map using SKOS vocabulary(Simple Knowledge Organis isation System)Miles and Brickley, 2005. In succeeding lookup iterations, each topic entity is enriched by a set of semantic properties such as definition http://www.aperture.sourceforge.net

3 The semantic tag recommendation system ConTag In order to generate tag recommendations we used concepts formalized in PIMO vocabulary. In PIMO, concepts are separated between the two classes Thing (e.g. persons, events, locations, etc.) and ResourceManifestation (music files, documents, etc). A relation occurrence connects Things to ResourceManifes￾tations, using the following semantic: A thing occurs in a document. Instances in a PIMO ontology are called things. Entities occurring in documents, are called topics. Expressing relevant similarities between things and topics may assume four different shapes in ConTag: Equivalence A topic corresponds directly to a thing. Classification If a topic’s class corresponds directly to an ontology class, the topic is recommended as new thing of the ontology class. Superordination If a topic’s class does not correspond to any ontology class, the topic is recommended as new thing of a new ontology class. Relation If a topic is semantically related to a thing without being equivalent, a suitable relationship between topic and thing should be proposed. In the actual version of ConTag we focus on realising the similarity case Equiva￾lence. Other semantic relations can be found in [Horak, 2006] and are discussed in future work. Generally, the idea of using things as tags (instead of labels) entails some basic advantages. Things are identified by URIs and labeled by rdfs:label or alternative labels pimo:altLabel. This design overcomes existing semantic problems such as synonyms, homonyms, acronyms and different spelling, which current tagging systems suffer, by separating the tag’s label from its identifica￾tion. Additionally, things may possess a set of further describing RDF properties providing the capability to better retrieve similarities. ConTag is based on a Semantic Tag Recommendation Process (see Fig. 1): 1. During the first step, Normalisation, the document’s content is tranformed to RDF format to gain a fulltext description. We use the Aperture4 framework to extract data and metadata such as author, creator and creation date. 2. During the second step, Topic Extraction, topics are extracted by requesting Web 2.0 services. This results in a topic map using SKOS vocabulary (Simple Knowledge Organisation System) [Miles and Brickley, 2005]. In succeeding lookup iterations, each topic entity is enriched by a set of semantic properties, such as definitions and synonyms. 4 http://www.aperture.sourceforge.net

docunent SKOS tag recorrunendations epresentation Soan Normalisation Topic Extraction Alignnent Generation Aligment Execution Figure 1: ConTag's Semantic Tag Recommendation Process 3. The Alignment Generation is based on document classification methods. For each topic in the topic map, several weighted alignment possibilities are computed to retrieve similar things. 4. The forth step is called Alignment Execution. The alignment scheme is visu- alized as tag recommendations. The user decides whether to accept or reject recommendations. Accepted recommendations are processed to: (1)create new occurrence relations in case of equivalence,(2)create new instances in case of Classification, (3) create new classes in case of Superordination and(4)create new relation types in cases of other semantic relations 4 Implementation datails The following sections describe parts of the Semantic Tag Recommendation Pro- cess, namely Topic Extraction and Alignment Generation. We used the rdF store Sesame 2 to manage ontologies in RDFS and topic maps in SKOS 4.1 Topic Extraction The topic extraction step is the most valuable step in the Tag recommendatio Process. It results in developing a document specific topic map by executing a Web 2.0 service choreography to extract document entities. The SKOs vocab- ulary distinguishes topics between instances and classes similar to PIMO lan- guage using relations(broaderInstantive, narrowerInstantive). Each topic possesses a name prefLabel and alternative labels altLabel. Each topic may be further explained by fulltext definitions written in natural language using definition The topic extraction step is based on querying Web 2.0 services. The chore- ography starts with extracting relevant keyphrases of the document. At the

Figure 1: ConTag’s Semantic Tag Recommendation Process 3. The Alignment Generation is based on document classification methods. For each topic in the topic map, several weighted alignment possibilities are computed to retrieve similar things. 4. The forth step is called Alignment Execution. The alignment scheme is visu￾alized as tag recommendations. The user decides whether to accept or reject recommendations. Accepted recommendations are processed to: (1) create new occurrence relations in case of Equivalence, (2) create new instances in case of Classification, (3) create new classes in case of Superordination, and (4) create new relation types in cases of other semantic relations. 4 Implementation datails The following sections describe parts of the Semantic Tag Recommendation Pro￾cess, namely Topic Extraction and Alignment Generation. We used the RDF store Sesame 2 to manage ontologies in RDFS and topic maps in SKOS. 4.1 Topic Extraction The topic extraction step is the most valuable step in the Tag Recommendation Process. It results in developing a document specific topic map by executing a Web 2.0 service choreography to extract document entities. The SKOS vocab￾ulary distinguishes topics between instances and classes similar to PIMO lan￾guage using relations (broaderInstantive, narrowerInstantive). Each topic possesses a name prefLabel and alternative labels altLabel. Each topic may be further explained by fulltext definitions written in natural language using definition. The topic extraction step is based on querying Web 2.0 services. The chore￾ography starts with extracting relevant keyphrases of the document. At the

moment Web 2.0 services such as Tagthe. net, Yahoo's Term Extraction service and Topicalizer are used to extract relevant keyphrases. The results are stored In a succeeding iteration, for each topic in the topic map, three succeeding lookups request Web 2.0 services to gather for more information: 1. a definition lookup queries web dictionaries such as WordNet for existing definitions. These definitions are copied and attached to their grounding topics to be used in the succeeding hypernym extraction and to further provide explanations 2. A succeeding hypernym lookup requests a self written hypernym extraction service called DefTag' to extract topic classes. These classes are stored as topics and link to instances using broaderInstantive and narrower- Instantive relation 3. a third association lookup requests services for word associations concerning each topic. This lookup considers four different services at the moment: (1+2) Two web services hosted by Ontok Wikipedia provide an access to wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, a collaborative web dictionary system. (3+4)Two web dictionary services(Moby Thesaurus II, WordNet Dictionary) are requested sing the dict protocol to extract a set of synonyms for a given term. The topic extraction step results in a document specific topic map written in SKOS. It describes each topic with definitions and word associations. See Horak, 2006 for more information about the used services 4.2 Aligning topics to things The alignment generation searches for similarities between topics and things. It results in an alignment scheme which is visualized as a list of tag recommenda- tions In order to express and weight similarities with confidence ratios, we used an ontology alignment vocabulary Due to a topological analysis of PIMO ontologies and document topic maps we assume that an ontology contains more entities than a topic map. Addi- tionally, ontologies contain class hierarchies, whether topic maps are rather fat structured. Therefore we focussed on aligning topics to things by applying hi- erarchical document classification techniques instead of using topolical ontology matching methods. In this paper, we describe a rather simple alignment ap- proach. Other appraches can be found in [Horak, 2006 http://tagthe.net tp://www.topicali 7http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/-horak/2006/cont 8http://phaselibs.opendfki.de/wiki/alignmentontologY

moment Web 2.0 services such as Tagthe.net5 , Yahoo’s Term Extraction service and Topicalizer6 are used to extract relevant keyphrases. The results are stored into a document specific topic map. In a succeeding iteration, for each topic in the topic map, three succeeding lookups request Web 2.0 services to gather for more information: 1. A definition lookup queries web dictionaries such as WordNet for existing definitions. These definitions are copied and attached to their grounding topics to be used in the succeeding hypernym extraction and to further provide explanations. 2. A succeeding hypernym lookup requests a self written hypernym extraction service called DefTag7 to extract topic classes. These classes are stored as topics and link to instances using broaderInstantive and narrower￾Instantive relations. 3. A third association lookup requests services for word associations concerning each topic. This lookup considers four different services at the moment: (1+2) Two web services hosted by Ontok Wikipedia provide an access to Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, a collaborative web dictionary system. (3+4) Two web dictionary services (Moby Thesaurus II, WordNet Dictionary) are requested using the DICT protocol to extract a set of synonyms for a given term. The topic extraction step results in a document specific topic map written in SKOS. It describes each topic with definitions and word associations. See [Horak, 2006] for more information about the used services. 4.2 Aligning topics to things The alignment generation searches for similarities between topics and things. It results in an alignment scheme which is visualized as a list of tag recommenda￾tions. In order to express and weight similarities with confidence ratios, we used an ontology alignment vocabulary8 . Due to a topological analysis of PIMO ontologies and document topic maps we assume that an ontology contains more entities than a topic map. Addi￾tionally, ontologies contain class hierarchies, whether topic maps are rather flat structured. Therefore we focussed on aligning topics to things by applying hi￾erarchical document classification techniques instead of using topolical ontology matching methods. In this paper, we describe a rather simple alignment ap￾proach. Other appraches can be found in [Horak, 2006]. 5 http://tagthe.net 6 http://www.topicalizer.com 7 http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~horak/2006/contag 8 http://phaselibs.opendfki.de/wiki/AlignmentOntology

To retrieve equivalencies between topics and things, we compared feature vectors using string matchings. a things feature vector is an aggregation of existing describing properties such as label or altLabel A topic's feature vector a list of extracted labels namely prefLabel and altLabel. We used SPARQL select queries with regular expressions to match both vectors and then computed a string similarity using the dice metric [Rijsbergen, 1979 to gain a confidence ratio. If this confidence ratio exceeds a threshold, an equivalence relation created To retrieve classification relations we compared topic classes with thing classes using the upper defined method. If this comparison results in any match ing equivalence, all concerning topic instances are recommended as new instances of the equivalent ontology class Finally, the Alignment Execution visualizes the resulting alignment scheme as tag recommendations. Each thing being involved in an alignment relation is concerned to be a tag for the documen 5 Evaluation In order to provide further evidence for our statement that information provided by Web 2.0 services in combination with a Semantic Web ontology enables the recommendation of relevant semantic tags for documents. we evaluated Con Tag by user ratings according to Precision and Recall [Rijsbergen, 1979 ratios We used an existing ontology with information about projects, employees and partners in PIMO language. Then, we interviewed eight persons, working on subjects being described in the ontology. They got a summary of the ontology content and eleven documents with tag recommendations. The documents were web sites about employees or projects, existing as things in the ontology. The interviewees rated the quality of the given tag recommendations with Precision and Recall ratios(see Fig. 2). As a result they rated recommended things of classes Projects, Persons and Organisations with Recall ratios above 80%, in general. These things were based on Equivalences. Things of class Location were rated with Recall ratios above 60%. These things were based on Classification Precision was rated above 70%, in general These ratios validate that the information provided by Web 2.0 services in ombination with a Semantic Web ontology enables the generation of relevant semantic tag recommendations for documents following this result it can be id that the convergence of Web 2.0 and Semantic Web is worthwhile regarding Web 2.0 tagging and Semantic Web ontologies fore detailed evaluation results concerning Precision and Recall progressions in different configuration scenarios and the distribution of tagging recommenda- tions in dynamic and nested class hierarchies are described in Horak, 2006

To retrieve equivalencies between topics and things, we compared feature vectors using string matchings. A thing’s feature vector is an aggregation of existing describing properties such as label or altLabel. A topic’s feature vector is a list of extracted labels namely prefLabel and altLabel. We used SPARQL select queries with regular expressions to match both vectors and then computed a string similarity using the dice metric [Rijsbergen, 1979] to gain a confidence ratio. If this confidence ratio exceeds a threshold, an equivalence relation is created. To retrieve classification relations we compared topic classes with thing classes using the upper defined method. If this comparison results in any match￾ing equivalence, all concerning topic instances are recommended as new instances of the equivalent ontology class. Finally, the Alignment Execution visualizes the resulting alignment scheme as tag recommendations. Each thing being involved in an alignment relation is concerned to be a tag for the document. 5 Evaluation In order to provide further evidence for our statement that information provided by Web 2.0 services in combination with a Semantic Web ontology enables the recommendation of relevant semantic tags for documents, we evaluated Con￾Tag by user ratings according to Precision and Recall [Rijsbergen, 1979] ratios. We used an existing ontology with information about projects, employees and partners in PIMO language. Then, we interviewed eight persons, working on subjects being described in the ontology. They got a summary of the ontology content and eleven documents with tag recommendations. The documents were web sites about employees or projects, existing as things in the ontology. The interviewees rated the quality of the given tag recommendations with Precision and Recall ratios (see Fig.2). As a result they rated recommended things of classes Projects, Persons and Organisations with Recall ratios above 80%, in general. These things were based on Equivalences. Things of class Location were rated with Recall ratios above 60%. These things were based on Classifications. Precision was rated above 70%, in general. These ratios validate that the information provided by Web 2.0 services in combination with a Semantic Web ontology enables the generation of relevant semantic tag recommendations for documents. Following this result it can be said that the convergence of Web 2.0 and Semantic Web is worthwhile regarding Web 2.0 tagging and Semantic Web ontologies More detailed evaluation results concerning Precision and Recall progressions in different configuration scenarios and the distribution of tagging recommenda￾tions in dynamic and nested class hierarchies are described in [Horak, 2006]

0 Figure 2: Precision and Recall ratios. 6 Conclusions and outlook In this paper we presented Con Tag, a system to generate semantic tag recommen- dations for documents based on Semantic Web ontologies. We designed a process to normalize documents to RDF format, extract document topics using Web 2.0 services and finally match extracted topics to instances of a Semantic Web on- tology. We use ontologies written in PIMO language to formalize instances and classes. Based on our evaluation, we provide evidence that it's possible to create relevant tag recommendations for documents by using Web 2.0 services in com bination with a Semantic Web ontology. The implemented system is available under a GPL license for download at the first author's homepage In future work we want to look for additional similarity metrics to further en- hance the alignment creation. The use of additional web services such as google Glossary and existing tagging services providing accessible APIs is planned. At he moment ConTag concentrates on retrieving equivalent things occuring in documents and the ontology. In future work, we are going to further develop Acknowledgments ConTa with the Bpm aware ess2007(seehttp //www.ibpmkongress.de)forbeingthebestdiplomathesisinthecategoryDoc ument Management. We would like to thank all members of the knowledge man- gement department for all their time, spent on discussions and support. This 9http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/-horak/2006/contag

Figure 2: Precision and Recall ratios. 6 Conclusions and Outlook In this paper we presented ConTag, a system to generate semantic tag recommen￾dations for documents based on Semantic Web ontologies. We designed a process to normalize documents to RDF format, extract document topics using Web 2.0 services and finally match extracted topics to instances of a Semantic Web on￾tology. We use ontologies written in PIMO language to formalize instances and classes. Based on our evaluation, we provide evidence that it’s possible to create relevant tag recommendations for documents by using Web 2.0 services in com￾bination with a Semantic Web ontology. The implemented system is available under a GPL license for download at the first author’s homepage9 . In future work we want to look for additional similarity metrics to further en￾hance the alignment creation. The use of additional web services such as Google Glossary and existing tagging services providing accessible APIs is planned. At the moment ConTag concentrates on retrieving equivalent things occuring in documents and the ontology. In future work, we are going to further develop and enhance remaining similarity cases. Acknowledgments ConTag was awarded with the IBPM Award at IBPM Kongress 2007 (see http: //www.ibpmkongress.de) for being the best diploma thesis in the category Doc￾ument Management. We would like to thank all members of the knowledge man￾agement department for all their time, spent on discussions and support. This 9 http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~horak/2006/contag

work was supported by the german Federal Ministry of Education, Science, Re- search and Technology(bmb-+f),(Grant 01 IW COl, Project EPOS: Evolving rsonal to Organizational Memories)and by the European Commission IST fund(Grant FP6-027705, project Nepomuk References Bloedorn and Hotho, 2004 Bloeh d Hotho, A(2004). Boosting for text classification with semantic featur Proceed nd from the Semantic Web at the onference on Anow workshop. Reprinted in Proceedings of WebKDD 2004, LNCS 3932, Springer. older and Huberman, 2005 Golder, S and Huberman, B. A(2005). The structure f collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2): 198-208 [Handschuh and Staab, 2003 Handschuh, S and Staab, S(2003). Cream-creatin metadata for the semantic web. Computer Networks, 42: 579-598. Elsevier. Horak, 2006 Horak. 006). Contag-a tagging system linking the semantic desk- topwithweb2.0.DiplomathesisUniversityKaiserslauternhttp://www.dfki.uni- kl.de/horak/mypubs/Con Tag.pdf. Huynh et al., 2005 Huynh, D, Mazzocchi, S, and Karger, D(2005). Piggy bank Experience the semantic web inside your web browser. In and Motta, E, Benjamins R, and Musen, M. A, editors, International Semantic Web Confe erence [ Kahan and Koivunen, 2001 Kahan, J and Koivunen, M.R.(2001).Annotea:an open RDF infrastructure for shared web annotations. In Proceedings of the 1 International World Wide Web Conference, pages 623-632 [Kipp and Campbell, 2006 Kipp, M. E I and Campbell, D. G.(2006). Patterns and consistencies in collaborative tagging systems: An examination of tagging practices In Annual General Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Lund et al., 2005 Lund, B, Hammond, T, Flack, M, and Hannay, T(2005). Social Bookmarking Tools(II): A Case Study -Connotea. D-Lib Magazine, 11(4) [Miles and Brickley, 2005] Miles, A and Brickley, D.(2005). sKOS core vocabulary specification. W3c working draft, World wide Web Consortium [Newman, 2005 Newman, R.(2005). Tag ontology design. blog entry at http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags [Quan et al., 2003 Quan, D, Huynh, D, and Karger, D. R.(2003). Haystack: a pla form for authoring end user semantic web applications. In Second International Semantic Web Conference(ISwC2003, Proceedings [Rijsbergen, 1979 Rijsbergen, C.J. v.(1979). Information retrieval. Butterworths ondon. 2 edition 2006 Sauermann, L.(2006). Pimo. a pim ontology for the seman- ticdesktopdraftarticleathttp://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/sauermann/2006/01-pimo- eport/pimOntology LanguageReport html Schmitz et al., 2006 Schmitz, C, Hotho, A, Jaeschke, R, and Stumme, G.(2006) Mining association rules in folksonomies. In Proc. IFCS 2006 Conference, pages 261-270, Ljubljana. Schmitz, 2006 Schmitz, P(2006). Inducing ontology from flickr tags. In Collabora- tive Web Tagging Workshop at www2006, Edinburgh, Scotland [ Sen et al., 2006Sen, S, Lam, S.K. T,, Rashid, A M., Cosley, D, Frankowsk,D,Os- terhouse, J, Harper, F. M, and Riedl, J(2006). tagging, communities, vocabulary evolution. In Proceedings of CsCw 06. Acm [Wal, 2004 Wal, T. V.(2004). Would we create hierarchies in a computing age? blog entryathttp://www.vanderwal.net/random/entrysel.php?blog=1598

work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education, Science, Re￾search and Technology (bmb+f), (Grant 01 IW C01, Project EPOS: Evolving Personal to Organizational Memories) and by the European Commission IST fund (Grant FP6-027705, project Nepomuk). References [Bloehdorn and Hotho, 2004] Bloehdorn, S. and Hotho, A. (2004). Boosting for text classification with semantic features. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Mining for and from the Semantic Web at the 10th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD 2004), pages 70–87. Joint Session with WebKDD workshop. Reprinted in Proceedings of WebKDD 2004, LNCS 3932, Springer. [Golder and Huberman, 2005] Golder, S. and Huberman, B. A. (2005). The structure of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2):198–208. [Handschuh and Staab, 2003] Handschuh, S. and Staab, S. (2003). Cream - creating metadata for the semantic web. Computer Networks, 42:579–598. Elsevier. [Horak, 2006] Horak, B. (2006). Contag - a tagging system linking the semantic desk￾top with web 2.0. Diploma thesis, University Kaiserslautern, http://www.dfki.uni￾kl.de/˜horak/mypubs/ConTag.pdf. [Huynh et al., 2005] Huynh, D., Mazzocchi, S., and Karger, D. (2005). Piggy bank: Experience the semantic web inside your web browser. In and Motta, E., Benjamins, V. R., and Musen, M. A., editors, International Semantic Web Conference. [Kahan and Koivunen, 2001] Kahan, J. and Koivunen, M.-R. (2001). Annotea: an open RDF infrastructure for shared web annotations. In Proceedings of the 10th International World Wide Web Conference, pages 623–632. [Kipp and Campbell, 2006] Kipp, M. E. I. and Campbell, D. G. (2006). Patterns and inconsistencies in collaborative tagging systems : An examination of tagging practices. In Annual General Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. [Lund et al., 2005] Lund, B., Hammond, T., Flack, M., and Hannay, T. (2005). Social Bookmarking Tools (II): A Case Study - Connotea. D-Lib Magazine, 11(4). [Miles and Brickley, 2005] Miles, A. and Brickley, D. (2005). SKOS core vocabulary specification. W3c working draft, World Wide Web Consortium. [Newman, 2005] Newman, R. (2005). Tag ontology design. blog entry at http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags. [Quan et al., 2003] Quan, D., Huynh, D., and Karger, D. R. (2003). Haystack: a plat￾form for authoring end user semantic web applications. In Second International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2003), Proceedings. [Rijsbergen, 1979] Rijsbergen, C. J. v. (1979). Information retrieval. Butterworths, London, 2 edition. [Sauermann, 2006] Sauermann, L. (2006). Pimo - a pim ontology for the seman￾tic desktop. draft article at http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/ sauermann/2006/01-pimo￾report/pimOntologyLanguageReport.html. [Schmitz et al., 2006] Schmitz, C., Hotho, A., Jaeschke, R., and Stumme, G. (2006). Mining association rules in folksonomies. In Proc. IFCS 2006 Conference, pages 261–270, Ljubljana. [Schmitz, 2006] Schmitz, P. (2006). Inducing ontology from flickr tags. In Collabora￾tive Web Tagging Workshop at WWW2006, Edinburgh, Scotland. [Sen et al., 2006] Sen, S., Lam, S. K. T., Rashid, A. M., Cosley, D., Frankowsk, D., Os￾terhouse, J., Harper, F. M., and Riedl, J. (2006). tagging, communities, vocabulary, evolution. In Proceedings of CSCW 06. ACM. [Wal, 2004] Wal, T. V. (2004). Would we create hierarchies in a computing age? blog entry at http://www.vanderwal.net/random/entrysel.php?blog=1598