• Asia pacific journal of information systems
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• pp.89-116
• /
• 2011

In collaborative tagging systems such as Delicious.com and Flickr.com, users assign keywords or tags to their uploaded resources, such as bookmarks and pictures, for their future use or sharing purposes. The collection of resources and tags generated by a user is called a personomy, and the collection of all personomies constitutes the folksonomy. The most significant need of the folksonomy users Is to efficiently find useful resources or experts on specific topics. An excellent ranking algorithm would assign higher ranking to more useful resources or experts. What resources are considered useful In a folksonomic system? Does a standard superior to frequency or freshness exist? The resource recommended by more users with mere expertise should be worthy of attention. This ranking paradigm can be implemented through a graph-based ranking algorithm. Two well-known representatives of such a paradigm are Page Rank by Google and HITS(Hypertext Induced Topic Selection) by Kleinberg. Both Page Rank and HITS assign a higher evaluation score to pages linked to more higher-scored pages. HITS differs from PageRank in that it utilizes two kinds of scores: authority and hub scores. The ranking objects of these pages are limited to Web pages, whereas the ranking objects of a folksonomic system are somewhat heterogeneous(i.e., users, resources, and tags). Therefore, uniform application of the voting notion of PageRank and HITS based on the links to a folksonomy would be unreasonable, In a folksonomic system, each link corresponding to a property can have an opposite direction, depending on whether the property is an active or a passive voice. The current research stems from the Idea that a graph-based ranking algorithm could be applied to the folksonomic system using the concept of mutual Interactions between entitles, rather than the voting notion of PageRank or HITS. The concept of mutual interactions, proposed for ranking the Semantic Web resources, enables the calculation of importance scores of various resources unaffected by link directions. The weights of a property representing the mutual interaction between classes are assigned depending on the relative significance of the property to the resource importance of each class. This class-oriented approach is based on the fact that, in the Semantic Web, there are many heterogeneous classes; thus, applying a different appraisal standard for each class is more reasonable. This is similar to the evaluation method of humans, where different items are assigned specific weights, which are then summed up to determine the weighted average. We can check for missing properties more easily with this approach than with other predicate-oriented approaches. A user of a tagging system usually assigns more than one tags to the same resource, and there can be more than one tags with the same subjectivity and objectivity. In the case that many users assign similar tags to the same resource, grading the users differently depending on the assignment order becomes necessary. This idea comes from the studies in psychology wherein expertise involves the ability to select the most relevant information for achieving a goal. An expert should be someone who not only has a large collection of documents annotated with a particular tag, but also tends to add documents of high quality to his/her collections. Such documents are identified by the number, as well as the expertise, of users who have the same documents in their collections. In other words, there is a relationship of mutual reinforcement between the expertise of a user and the quality of a document. In addition, there is a need to rank entities related more closely to a certain entity. Considering the property of social media that ensures the popularity of a topic is temporary, recent data should have more weight than old data. We propose a comprehensive folksonomy ranking framework in which all these considerations are dealt with and that can be easily customized to each folksonomy site for ranking purposes. To examine the validity of our ranking algorithm and show the mechanism of adjusting property, time, and expertise weights, we first use a dataset designed for analyzing the effect of each ranking factor independently. We then show the ranking results of a real folksonomy site, with the ranking factors combined. Because the ground truth of a given dataset is not known when it comes to ranking, we inject simulated data whose ranking results can be predicted into the real dataset and compare the ranking results of our algorithm with that of a previous HITS-based algorithm. Our semantic ranking algorithm based on the concept of mutual interaction seems to be preferable to the HITS-based algorithm as a flexible folksonomy ranking framework. Some concrete points of difference are as follows. First, with the time concept applied to the property weights, our algorithm shows superior performance in lowering the scores of older data and raising the scores of newer data. Second, applying the time concept to the expertise weights, as well as to the property weights, our algorithm controls the conflicting influence of expertise weights and enhances overall consistency of time-valued ranking. The expertise weights of the previous study can act as an obstacle to the time-valued ranking because the number of followers increases as time goes on. Third, many new properties and classes can be included in our framework. The previous HITS-based algorithm, based on the voting notion, loses ground in the situation where the domain consists of more than two classes, or where other important properties, such as "sent through twitter" or "registered as a friend," are added to the domain. Forth, there is a big difference in the calculation time and memory use between the two kinds of algorithms. While the matrix multiplication of two matrices, has to be executed twice for the previous HITS-based algorithm, this is unnecessary with our algorithm. In our ranking framework, various folksonomy ranking policies can be expressed with the ranking factors combined and our approach can work, even if the folksonomy site is not implemented with Semantic Web languages. Above all, the time weight proposed in this paper will be applicable to various domains, including social media, where time value is considered important.

• 만화애니메이션 연구
• /
• 통권41호
• /
• pp.455-486
• /
• 2015

1986년 특허등록으로 시작된 3D프린팅 기술은 당시에는 인식 부족으로 일부 기업 외에는 주목받지 못하는 기술이었다. 그러나 20년이 지나 만료되는 특허들이 나오는 오늘날에는 가격도 개인이 구매가능한 선까지 낮아졌고 컴퓨터 성능향상 및 인터넷 정보교류의 보편화로 3D 콘텐츠에 대한 인식이 보편화 되어 산업계는 물론 일반인들에게도 주목 받고 있다. 수정 및 유통이 편리한 디지털 데이터를 기반으로 하면서 금형제작이 필요없는 3D프린터는 제작 공정에서 획기적인 변화를 가져 올 수 있으며 캐릭터 콘텐츠상품 분야에서도 동일한 효과를 얻을 수 있다. 최근 들어 관심을 받고 있는 키덜트 문화의 가장 선두에 있는 다양한 캐릭터 상품 제작에는 3D프린터를 사용하는 것이 필수적인 공정이 되고 있으며 이 같은 캐릭터 콘텐츠 관련 산업현장 수요를 예측해 볼 때, 그리고 특허 만료 및 기술의 공유로 저렴해진 가격 등을 고려해 볼 때, 앞으로 교육현장에서 3D프린터를 활용할 수 있는 인재를 양성하는 교육과정을 도입하여 보다 창의적인 작업을 할 수 있는 인재를 양성하고 취업의 영역과 기회를 확대하는 것은 꼭 진행되어야 할 것이다. 그러나 학교 교육에서 3D프린터를 도입하고자 할 때 얻을 수 있는 정보는 한계가 있다. 언론이나 정보매체에서는 3D 프린터에 대한 장밋빛 미래가치나 산업규모 성장과 같은 일반적인 정보만을 거론하고 있으며 학계에서도 연구의 수준의 프린팅 기술 소개나 산업에서의 적용, 산업 규모 데이터 분석 등 개론수준의 내용 정리에 머무르고 있다. 이러한 정보의 부족은 교육현장에서 문제를 발생시킨다. 장점과 단점 비교와 같은 실질적인 정보 비교 없이 일단 도입 하여 시행착오의 과정 이후에서야 사용을 할 수 있게 됨으로서 시간적, 기회비용이 발생할 수밖에 없는 상황이다. 특히 많은 비용을 들여 도입한 장비가 학교 교육의 특성에 맞지 않는다면 그로 인한 비용손실은 클 것이다. 본 연구의 목적은 관련 전문가들이 아닌 기술관련 기반이 없는 일반 사용자들을 대상으로 하였다. 기존의 의 3D프린터 기술소개의 정도가 아닌 대표적 기술에 따른 사용상의 주의 점과 문제점을 분석하고 장단점을 비교하여 학교 교육, 특히 애니메이션 관련 학과에서 캐릭터 상품 개발과 관련한 교육에서 필요한 3D 프린터는 어떤 특성을 가져야 하는지를 설명하고 앞으로 3D프린터 이용한 교육을 시행하고자 할 때 실질적인 도움이 될 수 있는 정보를 제공하고자 하였다. 본론에서는 지지대 방식, 재료의 종류, 이차원 프린팅 방법, 삼차원 프린팅 방법과 같이 새로운 관점으로 기술을 구분하여 설명하였다. 이렇게 다른 구분 방식을 선택 하게 된 이유는 사용상의 실질적인 문제들을 상호 비교하기 용이하도록 하기 위함이다. 결론적으로 가장 적합한 3D프리터는 출력물의 품질은 다소 부족하지만 비교적 가격대가 저렴하고 재료 및 유지보수비용이 적게 드는 FDM방식의 프린터로 선정하였으며 부가적으로 기술지원이 잘되는 업체를 선정하기를 추천한다.