Conceptual syntagmatic associations in user tagging

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 63, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 923-935

  Yoon, Kyunghye ^a  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT OSWEGO   (United States)

Author keywords

semantic relationships; users

Indexed keywords

CONTENT DESCRIPTION; CONTEXT OF USE; DOCUMENT CONTEXT; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; INFORMATION CONTENTS; INFORMATION OBJECT; INFORMATION SEARCH; INTRA-GROUP; LINGUISTIC THEORY; SEMANTIC RELATIONS; SEMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS; SOCIAL BOOKMARKING; SOURCE TEXT; USERS;

SEMANTICS;

USER INTERFACES;

EID: 84860645786     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.22601     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Abulaish, M., &, Dey, L., (2006). Biological relation extraction and query answering from MEDLINE abstracts using ontoloty based text mining. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 61, 228-262. (Pubitemid 46413394)
2. Anderson, C., &, Wolff, M., (2010, August 17). The web is dead. Long Live the Internet. Wired, September. Retrieved from
3. Baziz, M., Boughanem, M., Aussenac-Gilles, N., &, Chrisment, C., (2005). Semantic core. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (pp. 1011-1017). New York: ACM Press.
4. Begthol, C., (1986). Bibliographic classification theory and text linguistics: Aboutness analysis, inter textuality and the cognitive act of classifying documents. Journal of Documentation, 42 (2), 84-113.
5. Bruns, A., (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and beyond: From production to produsage. New York: Peter Lang.
6. Bush, V., (1945). As we may think. The Atlantic Monthly, 176 (1), 101-108. Retrieved from
7. Capurro, R., (2008). Hermeneutics facing the "information enframing." ACM Ubiquity, 9 (8), 1-6.
8. Carr, N., (2008). Is Google making us stupid? The Atlantic. Retrieved from
9. Croft, B., Metzler, D., &, Strohman, T., (2009). Search engines: Information retrieval in practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
10. Ding, I., Jacob, E.K., Zhang, Z., Foo, S., Yan, E., George, N.L., &, Guo, L., (2009). Perspectives on social tagging. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (12), 2388-2409.
11. Ding, I., Jacob, E.K., Fried, M., Toma, I., Yan, E., Foo, S., &, Millojevic, S., (2010). Upper tag ontology for integrating social tagging data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (3), 505-521.
12. Fonseca, F., (2007). The double role of ontologies in information science research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 58 (6), 786-793. (Pubitemid 46587526)
13. Golder, S.A., &, Huberman, B.A., (2006). The structure of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32 (2), 198-208.
14. Green, R., (1995a). Topical relevance relationships I. Why topic matching fails. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46 (9), 646-653.
15. Green, R., (1995b). Syntagmatic relationships in index languages: A reassessment. The Library Quarterly, 65 (4), 365-385.
16. Green, R., (1995c.). The expression of conceptual syntagmatic relationships: A comparative survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51 (4), 315-338. (Pubitemid 126005589)
17. Green, R., (2001). Relationships in the organization of knowledge: Overview. In, C. Bean, &, R. Green, (Ed.), Relationships in the organization of knowledge (pp. 3-18). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
18. Hjørland, B., (2007). Semantics and knowledge organization. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 367-405.
19. Hjørland, B., (2009). Concept theory. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 60 (8), 1519-1536.
20. Hunter, J., (2009). Collaborative semantic tagging and annotation systems. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 43, 1-84.
21. Hutchins, W.J., (1977). On the problem of 'aboutness' in document analysis. Journal of Informatics, 1 (1), 17-35.
22. Jakobson, R., (1963). Essais de linguistique generale: Volume 1. Foundations du Language [Essays of general linguistics: Volume 1. Foundations of Language]. Paris, France: Editions de Minuit.
23. Keshet, Y., (2010). Classification systems in the light of sociology of knowledge. Journal of Documentation 67 (1), 144-158.
24. Khoo, C.S.G., &, Na, J.C., (2006). Semantic relations in information science. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 40, 157-228. (Pubitemid 41775499)
25. Krifka, M., (2008). Basic notions of information structure. Linguistics and Literature, 55 (3/4), 243-276.
26. Mathes, A., (2004). Folkosonomies-Cooperative classification and communication through shared metadata. Retrieved from
27. Morrison, P.J., (2008). Tagging and searching: Search retrieval effectiveness of folksonomies on the world wide web. Information Processing & Management, 44 (4), 1562-1579.
28. Peters, I.W., &, Weller, K., (2008). Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations in knowledge organization systems. Information, 59 (2), 100-107.
29. Quintarelli, E.R., Resmini, A., &, Rosati, L., (2007). Face tag: Integrating bottom-up and top-down classification in a social tagging system. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 33 (5), 10-15.
30. Rorissa, A., (2008). User-generated descriptions of individual images versus labels of groups of images: A comparison using basic level theory. Information Processing & Management, 44 (5), 1741-1753.
31. Shrinivasan, R., Boast, R., Becvar, K.M., &, Furner, J., (2009). Blobjects: Digital museum catalogs and diverse user communities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (4), 666-678.
32. Smith, G., (2008). Tagging-people powered metadata for the social web. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.
33. Spiteri, T., (2007). Structure and form of folksonomy tags: The road to the public library catalog. Webology, 4 (2). Retrieved from
34. Stock, W.G., (2010). Concepts and semantic relations in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 61 (10), 1951-1969.
35. Talja, S., Keso, H., &, Pietilainen, T., (1999). The production of 'context' in information seeking research: A metatheoretical view. Information Processing & Management, 35 (6), 751-763. (Pubitemid 30509550)
36. Talja, S., Tuominen, K., &, Savolainen, R., (2005). Isms' in information science: Constructivism, collectivism and constructionism. Journal of Documentation, 61 (1), 79-101. (Pubitemid 40687656)
37. Tonkin, E., Corrado, M.E., &, Moulaison, L.H., (2008). Collaborative and social tagging networks. Ariadne, 54. Retrieved from
38. Trant, J., &, Wayman, B., (2006). Investigating social tagging and folksonomy in art museums with steve.museum. Retrieved from
39. Tsui, E., Wang, W.M., Cheung, C.F., &, Lau A.S.M., (2009). A concept-relationship acquisition and inference approach for hierarchical taxonomy construction from tags. Information Processing & Management, 46 (1), 44-57.
40. Tuominen, K., Talja, S., &, Savolainen R., (2003). Multiperspective digital libraries: The implications of constructionism for the development of digital libraries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (6), 561-569.
41. Van Dijk, T.A., (1972). Some aspects of text grammars. A Study in theoretical poetics and linguistics (pp. 109-120). The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.
42. Van Dijk, T.A., (1979). Relevance assignment in discourse comprehension. Discourse Processes, 2, 113-126.
43. Yi, K., (2010). A semantic similarity approach to predicting Library of Congress subject headings for social tags. American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (8), 1658-1672.
44. Yoon, K., &, Nilan, M.S., (1999). Toward a reconceptualization of information seeking research: Focus on the exchange of meaning. Information Processing & Management, 35 (6), 871-890. (Pubitemid 30509557)
45. Yoon, K., &, Nilan, M.S., (2011). User meaning in interpersonal and technology mediated information need specification. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5 (9), 81-93.