Computing User Reputation in a Social Network of Web 2.0

In the Web 2.0 era, people not only read web contents but create, upload, view, share and evaluate all contents on the web. This leads us to introduce a new type of social network based on user activity and content metadata. We notice that we can determine the quality of related contents using this new social network. Based on this observation, we introduce a user evaluation algorithm for user-generated video sharing website. First, we make a social network of users from video contents and related social activities such as subscription, uploading or favorite. We then use a modified PageRank algorithm to compute user reputation from the social network. We re-calculate the content scores using user reputations and compare the results with a standard BM25 result. We apply the proposed approach to YouTube and demonstrate that the user reputation is closely related to the number of subscriptions and the number of uploaded contents. Furthermore, we show that the new ranking results relied on the user reputation is better than the standard BM25 approach by experiments

When the Social Meets the Semantic: Social Semantic Web or Web 2.5

The social trend is progressively becoming the key feature of current Web understanding (Web 2.0). This trend appears irrepressible as millions of users, directly or indirectly connected through social networks, are able to share and exchange any kind of content, information, feeling or experience. Social interactions radically changed the user approach. Furthermore, the socialization of content around social objects provides new unexplored commercial marketplaces and business opportunities. On the other hand, the progressive evolution of the web towards the Semantic Web (or Web 3.0) provides a formal representation of knowledge based on the meaning of data. When the social meets semantics, the social intelligence can be formed in the context of a semantic environment in which user and community profiles as well as any kind of interaction is semantically represented (Semantic Social Web). This paper first provides a conceptual analysis of the second and third version of the Web model. That discussion is aimed at the definition of a middle concept (Web 2.5) resulting in the convergence and integration of key features from the current and next generation Web. The Semantic Social Web (Web 2.5) has a clear theoretical meaning, understood as the bridge between the overused Web 2.0 and the not yet mature Semantic Web (Web 3.0).Pileggi, SF.; Fernández Llatas, C.; Traver Salcedo, V. (2012). When the Social Meets the Semantic: Social Semantic Web or Web 2.5. Future Internet. 4(3):852-854. doi:10.3390/fi4030852S85285443Chi, E. H. (2008). The Social Web: Research and Opportunities. Computer, 41(9), 88-91. doi:10.1109/mc.2008.401Bulterman, D. C. A. (2001). SMIL 2.0 part 1: overview, concepts, and structure. IEEE Multimedia, 8(4), 82-88. doi:10.1109/93.959106Boll, S. (2007). MultiTube--Where Web 2.0 and Multimedia Could Meet. IEEE Multimedia, 14(1), 9-13. doi:10.1109/mmul.2007.17Fraternali, P., Rossi, G., & Sánchez-Figueroa, F. (2010). Rich Internet Applications. IEEE Internet Computing, 14(3), 9-12. doi:10.1109/mic.2010.76Lassila, O., & Hendler, J. (2007). Embracing «Web 3.0». IEEE Internet Computing, 11(3), 90-93. doi:10.1109/mic.2007.52Dikaiakos, M. D., Katsaros, D., Mehra, P., Pallis, G., & Vakali, A. (2009). Cloud Computing: Distributed Internet Computing for IT and Scientific Research. IEEE Internet Computing, 13(5), 10-13. doi:10.1109/mic.2009.103Mangione-Smith, W. H. (1998). Mobile computing and smart spaces. IEEE Concurrency, 6(4), 5-7. doi:10.1109/4434.736391Greaves, M. (2007). Semantic Web 2.0. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22(2), 94-96. doi:10.1109/mis.2007.40Bojars, U., Breslin, J. G., Peristeras, V., Tummarello, G., & Decker, S. (2008). Interlinking the Social Web with Semantics. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 23(3), 29-40. doi:10.1109/mis.2008.50Definition of Web 2.0http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.htmlZhang, D., Guo, B., & Yu, Z. (2011). The Emergence of Social and Community Intelligence. Computer, 44(7), 21-28. doi:10.1109/mc.2011.65Pentlan, A. (2005). Socially aware, computation and communication. Computer, 38(3), 33-40. doi:10.1109/mc.2005.104Staab, S., Domingos, P., Mika, P., Golbeck, J., Li Ding, Finin, T., … Vallacher, R. R. (2005). Social Networks Applied. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 20(1), 80-93. doi:10.1109/mis.2005.16The Semantic Webhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-semantic-webDecker, S., Melnik, S., van Harmelen, F., Fensel, D., Klein, M., Broekstra, J., … Horrocks, I. (2000). The Semantic Web: the roles of XML and RDF. IEEE Internet Computing, 4(5), 63-73. doi:10.1109/4236.877487OWL Web Ontology Language Overviewhttp://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/Vetere, G., & Lenzerini, M. (2005). Models for semantic interoperability in service-oriented architectures. IBM Systems Journal, 44(4), 887-903. doi:10.1147/sj.444.0887Fensel, D., & Musen, M. A. (2001). The semantic web: a brain for humankind. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(2), 24-25. doi:10.1109/mis.2001.920595Shadbolt, N., Berners-Lee, T., & Hall, W. (2006). The Semantic Web Revisited. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(3), 96-101. doi:10.1109/mis.2006.62Dodds, P. S., & Danforth, C. M. (2009). Measuring the Happiness of Large-Scale Written Expression: Songs, Blogs, and Presidents. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(4), 441-456. doi:10.1007/s10902-009-9150-9Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2008). Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, 2(1–2), 1-135. doi:10.1561/1500000011Thelwall, M., Buckley, K., & Paltoglou, G. (2011). Sentiment strength detection for the social web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 163-173. doi:10.1002/asi.21662Blogmeterhttp://www.blogmeter.it/Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2010). Social Network Sensors for Early Detection of Contagious Outbreaks. PLoS ONE, 5(9), e12948. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012948Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdury, A. (2009). Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2169-2188. doi:10.1002/asi.21149Bernal, P. A. (2010). Web 2.5: The Symbiotic Web. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 24(1), 25-37. doi:10.1080/13600860903570145Mikroyannidis, A. (2007). Toward a Social Semantic Web. Computer, 40(11), 113-115. doi:10.1109/mc.2007.405Jung, J. J. (2012). Computational reputation model based on selecting consensus choices: An empirical study on semantic wiki platform. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(10), 9002-9007. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.03

The state-of-the-art in personalized recommender systems for social networking

With the explosion of Web 2.0 application such as blogs, social and professional networks, and various other types of social media, the rich online information and various new sources of knowledge flood users and hence pose a great challenge in terms of information overload. It is critical to use intelligent agent software systems to assist users in finding the right information from an abundance of Web data. Recommender systems can help users deal with information overload problem efficiently by suggesting items (e.g., information and products) that match users’ personal interests. The recommender technology has been successfully employed in many applications such as recommending films, music, books, etc. The purpose of this report is to give an overview of existing technologies for building personalized recommender systems in social networking environment, to propose a research direction for addressing user profiling and cold start problems by exploiting user-generated content newly available in Web 2.0

The Future of the Internet III

Presents survey results on technology experts' predictions on the Internet's social, political, and economic impact as of 2020, including its effects on integrity and tolerance, intellectual property law, and the division between personal and work lives