Linking and clustering artworks using social tags: Revitalizing crowd-sourced information on cultural collections
Gunho Chae
Graduate School of Culture Technology, KAIST, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305–701 Korea
Search for more papers by this authorJaram Park
Graduate School of Culture Technology, KAIST, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305–701 Korea
Search for more papers by this authorJuyong Park
Graduate School of Culture Technology, KAIST, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305–701 Korea
Search for more papers by this authorWoon Seung Yeo
Division of Digital Media, Ewha Womans University, Daehyeon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120–750 Korea
Search for more papers by this authorChungkon Shi
Graduate School of Culture Technology, KAIST, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305–701 Korea
Search for more papers by this authorGunho Chae
Graduate School of Culture Technology, KAIST, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305–701 Korea
Search for more papers by this authorJaram Park
Graduate School of Culture Technology, KAIST, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305–701 Korea
Search for more papers by this authorJuyong Park
Graduate School of Culture Technology, KAIST, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305–701 Korea
Search for more papers by this authorWoon Seung Yeo
Division of Digital Media, Ewha Womans University, Daehyeon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120–750 Korea
Search for more papers by this authorChungkon Shi
Graduate School of Culture Technology, KAIST, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305–701 Korea
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Social tagging is one of the most popular methods for collecting crowd-sourced information in galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAMs). However, when the number of social tags grows rapidly, using them becomes problematic and, as a result, they are often left as simply big data that cannot be used for practical purposes. To revitalize the use of this crowd-sourced information, we propose using social tags to link and cluster artworks based on an experimental study using an online collection at the Gyeonggi Museum of Modern Art (GMoMA). We view social tagging as a folksonomy, where artworks are classified by keywords of the crowd's various interpretations and one artwork can belong to several different categories simultaneously. To leverage this strength of social tags, we used a clustering method called “link communities” to detect overlapping communities in a network of artworks constructed by computing similarities between all artwork pairs. We used this framework to identify semantic relationships and clusters of similar artworks. By comparing the clustering results with curators' manual classification results, we demonstrated the potential of social tagging data for automatically clustering artworks in a way that reflects the dynamic perspectives of crowds.
References
- Ahn, Y.-Y., Bagrow, J.P., & Lehmann, S. (2010). Link communities reveal multiscale complexity in networks. Nature, 466(7307), 761–764.
- Aletras, N., Stevenson, M., & Clough, P. (2012). Computing similarity between items in a digital library of cultural heritage. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH), 16(4), 1–19.
- Bar-Ilan, J., Shoham, S., Idan, A., Miller, Y., & Shachak, A. (2008). Structured versus unstructured tagging: A case study. Online Information Review, 32(5), 635–647.
- Beyer, M.A., & Laney, D. (2012). The importance of “big data”: A definition. Stamford, CT: Gartner.
- Cairns, S. (2013). Mutualizing museum knowledge: Folksonomies and the changing shape of expertise. Curator: The Museum Journal, 56(1), 107–119.
- Chae, G., & Kim, J. (2011a). Can social tagging be a tool to reduce the semantic gap between curators and audiences? Making a semantic structure of tags by implementing the facetted tagging system for online art museums. In Proceedings of the the Museums and the Web 2011. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Retrieved from http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2011/papers/can_social_tagging_be_a_tool_to_reduce_the_sem
- Chae, G., & Kim, J. (2011b). Rethinking museum management by exploring the potential of social tagging systems in online art museums. International Journal of the Inclusive Museum, 3(3), 131–140.
- Chakraborty, A., & Ghosh, S. (2013). Clustering hypergraphs for discovery of overlapping communities in folksonomies. In A. Mukherjee, M. Choudhury, F. Peruani, N. Ganguly, & B. Mitra (Eds.), Dynamics On and Of Complex Networks (Vol. 2, pp. 201–220). New York: Springer.
- Giaccardi, E. (2012). Heritage and social media: Understanding heritage in a participatory culture. London: Routledge.
- Given, L.M., & McTavish, L. (2010). What's old is new again: The reconvergence of libraries, archives, and museums in the digital age. The Library, 80(1), 7–32.
- Gopalan, P.K., & Blei, D.M. (2013). Efficient discovery of overlapping communities in massive networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(36), 14534–14539.
- Grieser, K., Baldwin, T., Bohnert, F., & Sonenberg, L. (2011). Using ontological and document similarity to estimate museum exhibit relatedness. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH), 10(3), 1–20.
- Hearst, M.A. (2006). Clustering versus faceted categories for information exploration. Communications of the ACM, 49(4), 59–61.
- Howe, J. (2006). The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired magazine, 14(6), 1–4.
- Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Witchey, H. (2011). The NMC Horizon Report: 2011 Museum Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
- Karampinas, D., & Triantafillou, P. (2012). Crowdsourcing taxonomies. In E. Simperl, P. Cimiano, A. Polleres, O. Corcho, & V. Presutti (Eds.), The semantic web: Research and applications (pp. 545–559). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
- Kelly, L. (2010). How Web 2.0 is changing the nature of museum work. Curator: The Museum Journal, 53(4), 405–410.
- Kim, H.-N., Ji, A.-T., Ha, I., & Jo, G.-S. (2010). Collaborative filtering based on collaborative tagging for enhancing the quality of recommendation. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(1), 73–83.
- Kim, J.H., Tomasik, B., & Turnbull, D. (2009). Using artist similarity to propagate semantic information. In Proceedings of the 10th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR 2009) (pp. 375–380). Kobe: International Society for Music Information Retrieval.
- Klavans, J.L., LaPlante, R., & Golbeck, J. (2014). Subject matter categorization of tags applied to digital images from art museums. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(1), 3–12.
- Levy, M., & Sandler, M. (2007). A semantic space for music derived from social tags. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR'07) (pp. 411–416). Vienna, Austria: Austrian Computer Society.
- Lu, C., Hu, X., & Park, J.-R. (2011). Exploiting the social tagging network for web clustering. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, 41(5), 840–852.
- Marty, P.F., & Jones, K.B. (2008). Museum informatics: People, information, and technology in museums (Vol. 2). New York: Routledge.
- Oomen, J., & Aroyo, L. (2011). Crowdsourcing in the cultural heritage domain: Opportunities and challenges. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (pp. 138–149). Brisbane: ACM.
- Owens, T. (2013). Digital Cultural Heritage and the crowd. Curator: The Museum Journal, 56(1), 121–130.
- Palla, G., Derényi, I., Farkas, I., & Vicsek, T. (2005). Uncovering the overlapping community structure of complex networks in nature and society. Nature, 435(7043), 814–818.
- Park, S.J., Chae, G., MacDonald, C., Stein, R., Wiedenbeck, S., & Kim, J. (2012). AMARA: The affective museum of art resource agent. CHI'12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1035–1038). Austin: ACM.
- Proctor, N. (2010). Digital: Museum as platform, curator as champion, in the age of social media. Curator: The Museum Journal, 53(1), 35–43.
- Quintarelli, E., Resmini, A., & Rosati, L. (2007). Information architecture: Facetag: 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.
- Ridge, M. (2013). From tagging to theorizing: Deepening engagement with cultural heritage through crowdsourcing. Curator: The Museum Journal, 56(4), 435–450.
- Russo, A., Watkins, J., Kelly, L., & Chan, S. (2008). Participatory communication with social media. Curator: The Museum Journal, 51(1), 21–31.
- Shang, M.-S., Zhang, Z.-K., Zhou, T., & Zhang, Y.-C. (2010). Collaborative filtering with diffusion-based similarity on tripartite graphs. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 389(6), 1259–1264.
- Smith, G. (2007). Tagging: People-powered metadata for the social web, Safari. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
- Smith, M.K. (2006). Viewer tagging in art museums: Comparisons to concepts and vocabularies of art museum visitors. Advances in Classification Research Online, 17(1), 1–19.
- Srinivasan, R., Boast, R., Furner, J., & Becvar, K.M. (2009). Digital museums and diverse cultural knowledges: Moving past the traditional catalog. The Information Society, 25(4), 265–278.
- Stock, W.G. (2007). Folksonomies and science communicationA mash-up of professional science databases and Web 2.0 services. Information Services and Use, 27(3), 97–103.
- Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds. US: Random House Digital.
- Trant, J. (2006). Exploring the potential for social tagging and folksonomy in art museums: Proof of concept. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 12(1), 83–105.
- Visser, M.A. (2013). Tagging: An organization scheme for the Internet. Information Technology and Libraries, 29(1), 34–39.
- Wang, X., Tang, L., Gao, H., & Liu, H. (2010). Discovering overlapping groups in social media. Proceedings of the IEEE 10th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) (pp. 569–578). Sydney: IEEE.
- Xie, J., Kelley, S., & Szymanski, B.K. (2013). Overlapping community detection in networks: The state-of-the-art and comparative study. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 45(4), 43.
