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 all 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 ten classes of signs for reasoning. This suggests that regarding social tagging as a sign and systematically analyzing the interpretation are positively associated with the ten 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.

1. A Conceptual Framework
To appear in Journal of Information Science. 2008.
Post-print full paper:
http://guava.iis.sinica.edu.tw/_media/papers/semiotics/jis0799.pdf

2. What? What? What?
A Conceptual Framework
• Social Tagging… sounds familiar.
• Online Communication… looks no problem.
• Peircean Semiotics…?...?...?
systematic
abstract dynamic pragmatic
2
Huang & Chuang, 2008

3. Put it in two chemical metaphors…
A Conceptual Framework
• P i ’ one sign ～ one b i chemical element (
Peirce’s i basic h i l l t (proton).
t )
Representation Interpretant
I t t t
In Peircean semiotics, the formal
condition of a sign
must contain three parts,
{Representation, Object, Interpretant},
Object One proton is
to be considered composed of three
a complete sign.
quarks.
3
Huang & Chuang, 2008

4. Put it in two metaphors
metaphors…
A Conceptual Framework
• Peirce’s ten class of signs ～the Periodic Table.
Peirce s Table
providing a framework
to classify,
to systematize and
to compare all the many different forms of
sign/ information/tag/(chemical) behavior.
4
Huang & Chuang, 2008

5. users act like lightweight system designers in
the new online communication process
A Conceptual Framework
General users are
Writing wiki…
General users are
blogging…
General users are
mashing web
services…
5
Huang & Chuang, 2008: introduction

6. The changing Of
Online Communication Process … A Conceptual Framework
dimensions interpretations
the difficulty lies in the
interpretation along
technical and social
dimensions.
dimensions
tags
6
Huang & Chuang, 2008: research problems

7. Lack of a systematical exploration
of the overall picture
picture… A Conceptual Framework
Why are people engaged in social tagging?
Who are the interpreters?
What objects do the tags refer to ? Human
How does social tagging correspond to
online communications ?
Information
Machine
(tag)
7
Huang & Chuang, 2008: research problems

8. The k
Th keys t analyze these questions are:
to l th ti
The framework
of Peirce’s A Conceptual Framework
semiotics:
(1) Triadic sign
theory.
(2) Ten classes
of Signs.
8
Huang & Chuang, 2008: section 3,4,5

9. A Conceptual Framework
Our three conclusions
machine
are: meaning
i
human
meaning
Tagging
T i
( )
(1) we regard tagging as sign that
g gg g g as
conveys human and machine
meanings in the online
Sign
communication process.
process
9
Huang & Chuang, 2008

10. (2) we identify ten classes of social tagging signs to
offer a semiotic solution to the vagueness and
ambiguity of tagging in the online communication
g y gg g
process.
process. A Conceptual Framework
10
Huang & Chuang, 2008

11. (3.1) a systematic approach is offered here to explore the
interrelationships between social tagging, online
communication and the concepts of Peircean semiotics;
A Conceptual Framework
11
Huang & Chuang, 2008

12. (3.2) some practical implications for user-community
user-
designs and the use of tagging technologies are
discussed.
A Conceptual Framework
For pragmatic designs the properties of the 6 Open signs direct
designs,
the use for community of interest design; the 3 Informational
signs fall into personal preference; and the 1 Formal sign is
completed as a powerful constraints on the relative properties of
other signs
signs.
For semantic implications, the properties of the 3 Iconic signs
implications
demonstrate the possibility or appearance with similar properties of
th referred objects; th 4 I d i l signs are grouped t d
the f d bj t the Indexical i d to draw
users’ attentions to the existence or existential relation of objects;
and the 3 Symbolic signs is completed as a powerful constraints
on th relative properties of other signs.
the l ti ti f th i
The main value of the ten class of signs is the ability to predict the
sign characters of an element based on its location on the sign
class; as well as the relationship between each signs such as the
Replica relations of Signs (2,5); Signs (3,6,8); and Signs
(4,7,9,10).
12
Huang & Chuang, 2008

13. Open Questions (1)…
A Conceptual Framework
wants to
design
designer Web (3)Tag List
Ten class of “Tag list” as a
Tag List broad Sign.
re-classify
Can this dynamic application be done? 13
Huang & Chuang, 2008

14. Open Questions (2)…
A Conceptual Framework
search
terms re-cast
Web Keyword
user Archives
personal
preference
review
pre-classify
auto-
recommen
dation tags
d ti t
Will this application be seen ? 14
Huang & Chuang, 2008

15. Open Questions (3)…
A Conceptual Framework
15
Huang & Chuang, 2008

16. 1
1. introduction
2. problems A Conceptual Framework
triadic sign
3. triadic sign
interpretant of
social t
i l tagging
i
4. three
content universal
categories
5. ten classes
of signs
6. discussions
& implications
7.
7 conclusion
16
Huang & Chuang, 2008

17. no essential direct relationship between R &O
A Conceptual Framework
According t P i
A di to Peirce, a sign
i
“ is something, A, which
brings something B its
something, B,
interpretant sign determined
or created by it, into the
same sort of
correspondence with
something, C,
something C its object, as
object,
that in which itself stands to
C.”
17
Huang & Chuang, 2008: triadic sign

18. A Conceptual Framework
18
Huang & Chuang, 2008: interpretant of social tagging

19. A Conceptual Framework
Open
informational
Formal
• Mark • Mark • Mark
Iconic • Token Iconic • Token Iconic • Token
• Type
T • Type • Type
• Token • Token • Token
Open Indexical
Informational Formal
• Type Indexical
•TType
Indexical
•TType
Symbolic • Type Sy bo c
Symbolic • Type Symbolic
Sy bo c • Type
19
Huang & Chuang, 2008: ten classes of signs

20. Our Research Concept:
A Conceptual Framework
20
Huang & Chuang, 2008

21. The sign deals with the possibility of first
observation in order to determine the possible
evidence for future acts. A Conceptual Framework
• it is a feeling of something.
In social tagging, the terms of “tagging”, “social tagging”,
“ folksonomy” or “tagsonomy” initially any possible
feeling of social tagging concepts.
g gg g p
a feeling no determined Representation of “How” tag
should represent it.
“What” the icon sign refers to some characters or
likeness of tagging Objects whether any such Object exist or
not.
The sign is interpreted by user community openly for their
community of interest according to their past experience. This
Interpretation is itself of a sign for social tagging by “Wh and
I t t ti i it lf f i f i lt i b “Who d
Why” questions.
21
Huang & Chuang, 2008: ten classes of tagging signs

22. The second sign is the actual existence of the
Sign (1); an individual or particular copy of a tag
(Type); in theory there can be lots of tokens of a
theory,
single type (tag). A Conceptual Framework
Tag clouds resemble their likeness of characters
as tagging, but represent in the actual form of the
cloud diagram; the visualization of the most used
tags of a folksonomy.
Sinclair and Cardew-Hall (2008): a “visual
summary of contents” / it serves as a broad and
y
general categorization of information.
Hearst and Rosner (2008): “social signallers”
Sign (2) is a sign of an individual diagram, which
allows several copies of a single tag; however, it
only determines the idea or feeling of an object,
irrespective of whether any such object exists. From
this perspective, tag clouds are not meant to be, and
are not noted for, their information accuracy.
t t d f th i i f ti
22
Huang & Chuang, 2008: ten classes of tagging signs

23. In theory this sign is any object of direct
theory,
connection or existential relation, as it directs A Conceptual Framework
attention to an Object by which its existence is
caused.
caused
The sign deals with possible evidence as some
relations have been connected
connected.
It is the sign to indicate some past state of affairs.
It forces the attention to the particular object intended
without describing it.
Tag clustering, in social tagging cases, indicates
g g, gg g ,
some past state of tag connection. Its Object deals
with existential relation for the Index while
Representing forms are still remain in the level of
Token. Tag Clusters are the actual existence of some
single tag copies according to a certain degree of
similarity like related tags or patterns.
23
Huang & Chuang, 2008: ten classes of tagging signs

24. Tag Clustering of “web” in flickr
A Conceptual Framework
Before
Clustering
Clustering
with
related
words
24
Huang & Chuang, 2008: ten classes of tagging signs

25. any object of direct experience, connection or
existential relation.
Personomy: the collection of personal tags acrossConceptual Framework
A
different web systems.
Tag RSS: The tag acts as an indexical token that
finds web resources related to the token in various
web services.
25
Huang & Chuang, 2008: ten classes of tagging signs

26. deals with the operation of Representation to
create or discover a possible rule.
The mode of being of Sign (5) is that of
governing single R li
i i l Replicas, each of which will b
h f hi h ill be
A Conceptual Framework
a Sign (2) of a peculiar kind.
26
Huang & Chuang, 2008: ten classes of tagging signs

27. any general law or type that requires each
instance of it to be strongly influenced by its
indexical Object
Object.
Each Replica of Sign (6) will be a Sign (3) of a
A Conceptual Framework
peculiar kind.
tags with specific forms that are not in the
t ith ifi f th t t i th
vocabulary, e.g., “DSC-R1 for he Sony DSC-R1
camera fans; “ACIA” are used differently in
different comm nities
communities.
(1) community knowledge can be explored by
using specific tags.
tags
(2) non-vocabulary tags prevent public
understanding and provide identification for
specific events
(3) a tool to express or promote a community’s
campaigns or interests.
27
Huang & Chuang, 2008: ten classes of tagging signs

28. any general type or law. Sign(7) requires each
case of the sign to be really affected by its
Object and provides definite information about
the Object.
A Conceptual Framework
Each Replica of Sign (7) will be a Sign (4) of a
peculiar kind
personal tags as
indexical objects in
system.
one s stem
“semantic web” as a
tag used by different
g y ff
users for grouping
their own objects
28
Huang & Chuang, 2008: ten classes of tagging signs

29. connected with its Object by any connection
of general ideas; The Replica of Sign (8) is
Sign (3) of a peculiar kind.
common words are usually embedded with A Conceptual Framework
conventional rules for linguistic meanings, but
without any specific explanation in p
y p p practice.
Noll & Meinel (2007):
tags,
popular tags which
account for half the
tags in use, are
general rather than
specific.
29
Huang & Chuang, 2008: ten classes of tagging signs

30. its intended Interpretant represents as an
existential relation that must be connected with
the indicated Object; the Replica of Sign (9) is a
Sign (4) of a peculiar kind
kind.
A Conceptual Framework
tagging is mainly for personal purposes (Golder
& Huberman, 2006; Zollers, 2007)
, ; , )
tags’ linguistic forms of non-nominal
representations ( g verbs and adjectives) are
p (e.g., j )
regarded as supplements of categories that take
their meanings from the categories’ descriptions
(Veres, 2006)
Personal tagging as
personal statement by
The K
Th KronoNaut at
N t t
Flickr
30
Huang & Chuang, 2008: ten classes of tagging signs

31. the t l i
th most complex sign restricted b certain
t i t d by t i
rules, which is mainly restricted by designers
for logical reasoning process.
A Conceptual Framework
Three levels of Interpreters with their interpretation tags are provided
by del.icio.us system designers as a recommendation mechanism for
del icio us
users to tag their bookmarks.
31
Huang & Chuang, 2008: ten classes of tagging signs

32. A Conceptual Framework
the emergence of online communication
systems can be understood as a sign
within
“a communication of programs between
computers from man to computers from
computers, computers,
man to man, as well as from man to
himself
himself” …..by Heinz Zemanek (1965)
32
Huang & Chuang, 2008: ten classes of tagging signs