One of the recent web developments has focused on the opportunities it presents for social tagging through user participation and collaboration. As a result, social tagging has changed the traditional online communication process. The interpretation of tagging between humans and machines may create new problems if essential questions about how social tagging corresponds to online communications, what objects the tags refer to, who the interpreters are, and why they are engaged are not explored systematically. Since such reasoning is an interpretation of social tagging among humans, tags and machines, it is a complex issue that calls for deep reflection. In this paper, we investigate the relevance of the potential problems raised by social tagging through the framework of C.S. Peirce's semiotics. We find that general phenomena of social tagging can be well classified by Peirce's 10 classes of signs for reasoning. This suggests that regarding social tagging as a sign and systematically analyzing the interpretation are positively associated with the 10 classes of signs. Peircean semiotics can be used to examine the dynamics and determinants of tagging; hence, the various uses of this categorization schema may have implications for the design and development of information systems and web applications.
L. Rainie, Why Tagging Matters: An Interview with David Weinberger (2007). Available at: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/402/tagging-play (accessed 9 September 2008).
2.
P. Mika, Ontologies are us: a unified model of social networks and semantics . In: G. Yolanda, E. Motta, V. R. Benjamins and M. A. Musen (eds), ISWC 2005: Proceedings of the 4th International Semantic Web Conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3729 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005) 522-536.
3.
C. Cattuto , V. Loreto and L. Pietronero, Semiotic dynamics and collaborative tagging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(5) (2007) 1461-1464.
4.
B. Sereno, S.B. Shum and E. Motta, Formalization, User strategy and interaction design: users' behaviour with discourse tagging. In: WWW2007: Proceedings of the 16th International World Wide Web Conference (Banff , Alberta, Canada, 2007).
5.
A. Mathes, Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication through Shared Metadata (2004). Available at: http://adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated-communication/folksonomies.pdf (accessed September 9, 2008).
6.
G. Smith, Tagging: People-powered Metadata for the Social Web (Voices That Matter) (New Riders Press, Berkeley, CA , 2008)
7.
W. Lenski, Towards a theory of information. In: W. Lenski (ed.), Logic versus Approximation, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3075 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004) 77-105.
8.
C.S. Peirce, Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (abbreviations: CP x.xxx (volume.paragraph). --Phenomenology, Chapter 2: The Categories in Details. In: C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss (eds), Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (1) (Thoemmes Press, Bristol, 1998) 300-353. --Elements of Logic, Chapter 2: Division of Signs. In: C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss (eds), Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (2) (Thoemmes Press, Bristol, 1998) 134-272. -Mathematical philosophy, Parts of Carnegie Applications, No. 12 On the Definition of Logic. In: C. Eisele (ed.), The New Elements of Mathematics, Vol. 4, (abbreviations: NEM) (Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1976) 20-21.
9.
R. Marty, 76 Definitions of the sign by C.S. Peirce. Available at: www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/rsources/76defs/76defs.htm (last accessed 25 May, 2008).
10.
C.S. de Souza , The Semiotic Engineering of Human-Computer Interaction, Part I (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA , 2005) 1-108.
11.
C.W. Morris , Foundation of the theory of signs. In: International Encyclopaedia of Unified Science I(2),( The University of Chicago Press , Chicago, IL, 1938).
12.
J.J. Liszka , Another look at Morris's semiotic, Semiotica, 145 (2003) 217-233.
13.
A.D. Madden , A definition of information, Aslib Proceedings52(9) (2000) 343-349.
14.
S. Mazzali-Lurati , Here is the author! Hyperlinks as constitutive rules of hypertextual communication, Semiotica167 (2007) 135-168.
15.
E. Michlmayr and S. Cayzer, Learning user profiles from tagging data and leveraging them for personal(ized) information access. In: WWW2007: Proceedings of the 16th International World Wide Web Conference (Banff, Alberta, Canada, 2007).
16.
J. Diederich and T. Iofciu, Finding communities of practice from user profiles based on folksonomies. In: TEL-CoPs'06: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Building Technology Enhanced Learning Solutions for Communities of Practice. Available at: www.l3s.de/~diederich/Papers/TBProfile-telcops.pdf (accessed 25 April 2008).
17.
S.A. Golder and B.A. Huberman, Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems, Journal of Information Science32(2) (2006) 198-208.
18.
A. Hotho, R. Jäschke, C. Schmitz and G. Stumme, Trend detection in folksonomies. In: Y. Avrithis , Y Kompatsiaris, S. Staab and N O'Connor (eds), Semantic Multimedia 2006, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4306 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006) 56-70.
19.
C.M. Au Yeung , N. Gibbins and N. Shadbolt, A study of user profile generation from folksonomies. In: WWW2008: Social Web and Knowledge Management, Social Web 2008 Workshop at Proceedings of the 17th International World Wide Web Conference (Beijing, China, 2008).
20.
G. Shank and D.J. Cunningham , Modelling the six modes of Peircean abduction for educational purposes. In: M. Gasser (ed.), Proceedings of the 1996 Midwest Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science Conference (Indiana, USA, 1996).
21.
J. Sinclair and M. Cardew-Hall, The folksonomy tag cloud: when is it useful? Journal of Information Science34 (2008) 15-29.
22.
M.A. Hearst and D. Rosner, Tag clouds: data analysis tool or social signaller? In: IEEE Conference Proceedings: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (IEEE, Hawaii, 2008).
23.
M.A. Hearst , Clustering versus faceted categories for information exploration, Communications of the ACM49(4) (2006) 59-62.
24.
G. Anadiotis , T. Franz and S. Boll, Use Case: Collaborative Tagging . Available at www.w3.org/ 2005/Incubator/mmsem/wiki/Tagging_Use_Case (last accessed 25 April 2008).
25.
L. Kennedy, M. Naaman, S. Ahern, R. Nair, T. Rattenbury.How Flickr helps us make sense of the world: context and content in community-contributed media collections. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Multimedia (ACM Press, New York, 2007) 631-640.
26.
M. Ames and M. Naaman, Why we tag: motivations for annotation in mobile and online media . In: ACM SIGCHI: Proceedings of the ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (ACM Press, New York, 2007) 971-980.
27.
S. Ahern, D. Eckles, N.S. Good, S. King, M. Naaman and R. Nair.Over-exposed?: privacy patterns and considerations in online and mobile photo sharing. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems ( ACM Press, New York, 2007) 357-366.
28.
M.G. Noll and C. Meinel, Authors vs. readers: a comparative study of document metadata and content in the WWW. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Symposium on Document Engineering (ACM Press, New York, 2007) 177-186.
29.
A. Zollers, Emerging motivations for tagging: expression, performance, and activism . In: WWW2007: Proceedings of the 16th International World Wide Web Conference (Banff, Alberta, Canada, 2007).
30.
C. Veres.The language of folksonomies: What tags reveal about user classification. In: C. Kop, G. Fliedl, H. C. Mayr and E. Métais (eds), Natural Language Processing and Information Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3999 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006) 58-69.
31.
P. Morville and L. Rosenfeld, Information Architecture for the World Wide Web (3rd edn): Designing Large-scale Web Sites, Chapter 5: Organization systems (O'Reilly, USA, 2007) 53-80.
32.
H. Zemanek , Semiotics and programming languages, Communications of the ACM9(3) (1966) 139-143.
