|
ABSTRACT
The popularity of social media sharing sites such as Flickr has driven a significant amount of research on the analysis of information contained in the tags used to annotate images. Many of such tags are not useful to describe the contents of an image and are often labeled as not descriptive or even noisy. In this work we focus on the descriptiveness of a tag in an exploratory way, within a relatively narrow domain, and with the help of a visual classifier. Preliminary experimental results demonstrate the possibility to infer descriptiveness of tags from a joint analysis of tag entropy calculations and the results of an automated visual classifier with a limited number of classes without taking tag content or tag co-occurrence into account. We postulate that these experiments can be extended and improved toward a working solution that might answer the question: Given a semantic category, which tags would you use for searching an image from that category?
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
 |
1
|
|
| |
2
|
M. Aurnhammer, P. Hanappe, and L. Steels. Integrating collaborative tagging and emerging semantics for image retrieval. In Proceedings of the Collaborative Web Tagging Workshop (WWW 2006), 2006.
|
 |
3
|
|
| |
4
|
|
| |
5
|
|
 |
6
|
Ritendra Datta , Dhiraj Joshi , Jia Li , James Z. Wang, Image retrieval: Ideas, influences, and trends of the new age, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.40 n.2, p.1-60, April 2008
[doi> 10.1145/1348246.1348248]
|
| |
7
|
A. Friedman. Framing pictures: the role of knowledge in automatized encoding and memory for gist. J Exp Psychol Gen, 108(3):316--55, 1979.
|
 |
8
|
George W. Furnas , Caterina Fake , Luis von Ahn , Joshua Schachter , Scott Golder , Kevin Fox , Marc Davis , Cameron Marlow , Mor Naaman, Why do tagging systems work?, CHI '06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, April 22-27, 2006, Montréal, Québec, Canada
[doi> 10.1145/1125451.1125462]
|
| |
9
|
|
| |
10
|
M. Guy and E. Tonkin. Folksonomies - tidying up tags? D-Lib Magazine, 12(1), January 2006. ISSN 1082--9873.
|
 |
11
|
|
| |
12
|
E. Hyvonen, A. Styrman, and S. Saarela. Ontology-based image retrieval. In Towards the semantic web and web services, Proceedings of XML Finland 2002 Conference, pages 15--27, 2002.
|
| |
13
|
|
| |
14
|
J. Luo and M. Boutell. Natural scene classification using overcomplete ICA. Pattern Recognition, 38(10):1507--1519, 2005.
|
| |
15
|
P. Mika. Ontologies are us: A unified model of social networks and semantics. In International Semantic Web Conference, LNCS, pages 522--536. Springer, 2005.
|
 |
16
|
|
| |
17
|
|
| |
18
|
A. Payne and S. Singh. Indoor vs. outdoor scene classification in digital photographs. Pattern Recognition, 38(10):1533--1545, 2005.
|
| |
19
|
N. Rasiwasia, N. Vasconcelos, and P. Moreno. Query by semantic example. Proceedings of the International Conference in Image and Video Retrieval, pages 51--60, 2006.
|
 |
20
|
|
 |
21
|
|
| |
22
|
|
| |
23
|
R. Troncy, J. van Ossenbruggen, J. Z. Pan, and G. Stamou. Image annotation on the semantic web. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium, August 2007.
|
| |
24
|
|
| |
25
|
|
| |
26
|
|
 |
27
|
|
|