- IOSPress: Scientific, Technical Medical Publisher
- A Revised Taxonomy of Social Networking Data Lately I've been reading about user security and privacy -- control, really -- on social networking sites. ...A Revised Taxonomy of Social Networking Data Lately I've been reading about user security and privacy -- control, really -- on social networking sites. The issues are hard and the solutions harder, but I'm seeing a lot of confusion in even forming the questions. Social networking sites deal with several different types of user data, and it's essential to separate them. Below is my taxonomy of social networking data, which I first presented at the Internet Governance Forum meeting last November, and again -- revised -- at an OECD workshop on the role of Internet intermediaries in June. * Service data is the data you give to a social networking site in order to use it. Such data might include your legal name, your age, and your credit-card number. * Disclosed data is what you post on your own pages: blog entries, photographs, messages, comments, and so on. * Entrusted data is what you post on other people's pages. It's basically the same stuff as disclosed data, but the difference is that you don't have control over the data once you post it -- another user does. * Incidental data is what other people post about you: a paragraph about you that someone else writes, a picture of you that someone else takes and posts. Again, it's basically the same stuff as disclosed data, but the difference is that you don't have control over it, and you didn't create it in the first place. * Behavioral data is data the site collects about your habits by recording what you do and who you do it with. It might include games you play, topics you write about, news articles you access (and what that says about your political leanings), and so on. * Derived data is data about you that is derived from all the other data. For example, if 80 percent of your friends self-identify as gay, you're likely gay yourself. There are other ways to look at user data. Some of it you give to the social networking site in confidence, expecting the site to safeguard the data. Some of it you publish openly and others use it to find you. And some of it you share only within an enumerated circle of other users. At the receiving end, social networking sites can monetize all of it: generally by selling targeted advertising. Different social networking sites give users different rights for each data type. Some are always private, some can be made private, and some are always public. Some can be edited or deleted -- I know one site that allows entrusted data to be edited or deleted within a 24-hour period -- and some cannot. Some can be viewed and some cannot. It's also clear that users should have different rights with respect to each data type. We should be allowed to export, change, and delete disclosed data, even if the social networking sites don't want us to. It's less clear what rights we have for entrusted data -- and far less clear for incidental data. If you post pictures from a party with me in them, can I demand you remove those pictures -- or at least blur out my face? (Go look up the conviction of three Google executives in Italian court over a YouTube video.) And what about behavioral data? It's frequently a critical part of a social networking site's business model. We often don't mind if a site uses it to target advertisements, but are less sanguine when it sells data to third parties. As we continue our conversations about what sorts of fundamental rights people have with respect to their data, and more countries contemplate regulation on social networking sites and user data, it will be important to keep this taxonomy in mind. The sorts of things that would be suitable for one type of data might be completely unworkable and inappropriate for another.
- On the “social web” or “web2.0″, where user participation is entirely voluntarily, User Motivation has been identified as a key factor in the mechanisms co...On the “social web” or “web2.0″, where user participation is entirely voluntarily, User Motivation has been identified as a key factor in the mechanisms contributing to the success of tagging systems. Web researchers are trying to identify the reasons why tagging systems work for a couple of years now, evident in, for example, the organization of a panel at CHI 2006 and a number of conferences and workshops on this topic.
- Workshop Topics Possible topics of the workshop include (but are not limited to): * Social network analysis * Bibliometrics * Community...Workshop Topics Possible topics of the workshop include (but are not limited to): * Social network analysis * Bibliometrics * Community discovery * Personalization for search and for social interaction * Recommender systems * Web mining algorithms * Applications of social network analysis * Mining (Collaborative) Tagging Systems (blogs, wikis, etc.) * Mining social data for multimedia information retrieval * Opinion mining
- How to find people with similar interests on del.icio.us or flickr or other social software?
- The SCOT(Social Semantic Cloud Of Tags) ontology is to semantically represent the structure and semantics of a collection of tags and to represent social n...The SCOT(Social Semantic Cloud Of Tags) ontology is to semantically represent the structure and semantics of a collection of tags and to represent social networks among users based on the tags.
- (or how the lower cognitive cost of tagging makes it popular)
- Plum lets you put all the stuff you care about, stumble across or need in one place. Collect and save from the web, your email, or your computer. Then pers...Plum lets you put all the stuff you care about, stumble across or need in one place. Collect and save from the web, your email, or your computer. Then personalize and share it with others (if you like). You can even discover other collections like yours and collect them too.
- A Folksonomy Search Engine
- Recommender Systems for the Social Web, volume 32 of Intelligent Systems Reference Library, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, (2012)
- Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on Recommender systems, page 45--52. New York, NY, USA, ACM, (2011)
- Proceedings of the nineteenth ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, page 81--88. New York, NY, USA, ACM, (2008)
- Proceedings of the 32nd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, page 195--202. New York, NY, USA, ACM, (2009)
- D-Lib Magazine (November 2006)
- Proceedings of BCS IRSG Symposium: Future Directions in Information Access 2007, (August 2007)
- Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Recommender systems, page 167--174. New York, NY, USA, ACM, (2010)
- Dissertationen zur Künstlichen Intelligenz Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft AKA, Heidelberg, Germany, (January 2011)
- AI Communications 20(4):245--262 (December 2007)
- Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 6(1):38--53 (February 2008)
- Proceedings of the Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop at the 14th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, Aalborg, Denmark, Aalborg University Press, (July 2006)
- The VLDB Journal 19(6):849--875 (December 2010)
- Universität Düsseldorf, PhD thesis, (2009)
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis 59(2):77--90 (2008)
- 2010 International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems CTS, page 349--356. IEEE, (May 2010)
- World Wide Web 12(4):421--440 (2009)
- Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Human System Interaction - HSI'2010, page 548--555. IEEE Press, (May 2010)
- JCDL '07: Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, page 107--116. New York, NY, USA, ACM, (2007)
- HT '10: Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, page 265--270. New York, NY, USA, ACM, (2010)
- HT '10: Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, page 157--166. New York, NY, USA, ACM, (2010)


user