Folksonomies as Subject Access: A Survey of Tagging in Library Online Catalogs and Discovery Layers
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Folksonomies as Subject Access: A Survey of Tagging in Library Online Catalogs and Discovery Layers

  • 1,102 views
Uploaded on

Presentation from IFLA Satellite Post-Conference: Beyond libraries - subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn

Presentation from IFLA Satellite Post-Conference: Beyond libraries - subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn

More in: Technology , Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,102
On Slideshare
932
From Embeds
170
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 170

http://folksonomie.wordpress.com 107
http://lonewolflibrarian.wordpress.com 59
http://www.library.ceu.hu 4

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • 1. Introduction-define folksonomy and past research about folksonomies
  • Studies to compare user-created tags with controlled vocabulariesTags in LibraryThing and LC Subject Headings
  • AcquaBrowser allows users to enter tags, but do not display user contributed tags; 1 discovery tool provide non-user contributed tag clouds1 discovery tool combine user contributed tags with system extracted keywords in tag clouds

Transcript

  • 1. Folksonomies as Subject Access A Survey of Tagging in Library Online Catalogs and Discovery Layers IFLA Satellite Post-Conference: Beyond libraries – subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn Yan Yi Lee, Wagner College, NY, USA Sharon Q. Yang, Rider University, NJ, USA
  • 2. Overview1. Introduction – What is folksonomy? – Is folksonomy useful as subject access?2. Survey-purpose and methodology3. Findings and discussion4. Conclusion
  • 3. What is Folksonomy?• Taxonomy + folk = folksonomy• Classification of resources by users• Describe resources in users’ own language• Tags and tag clouds are folksonomy
  • 4. Tags & Tag Cloud• Keywords created by users called “tags”• Each tag is a link• Tags accumulate into a cloud• Tag Cloud - A visual subject classification scheme - Font and size show which tags are more popular
  • 5. Example of Tag CloudTag Cloud in test OPAC of Wagner College Library
  • 6. Folksonomy as Subject Access?Past research compared LCSH with folksonomy inLibraryThing: – Up to 60% of the folksonomy duplicate LCSH. – A small percentage comprises useless tags – Tags use different terms than LCSH – Tags cover more aspect of a book’s subject – 20% to 30% can provide additional access to library collections
  • 7. So the Questions are…• How do library systems handle folksonomy?• How do libraries handle folksonomy when given the capability?• How do users handle folksonomy when given the opportunity?
  • 8. MethodologySystems (Marshall Breeding’s Technology Guide) – Discovery layers (15) – OAPC of Integrated Library System (37)Libraries – Koha OPACs (307)Users – Koha OPACS (307)
  • 9. Discovery Tools & TaggingThe survey checked all the major discovery tools – 47% Discovery Tools allow users to add tags • 40% can display Tag list • 33% can display a tag cloud • 27% can display both – 47% execute a new search – 20% narrow a search
  • 10. 15 Discovery Tools & Tagging Systems Allow Users to add Tag Cloud Tag list Tag to start a new Tag to refine tags search a search1 AquaBrowser Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes2 AXIELL ARENA No No No No No3 Blacklight No No No No No4 Biblio Commons Yes No Yes Yes Yes5 EBSCO Discover Service No No No No No6 Encore Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes7 Endeca No No No No No8 Enterprise No No No No No9 Primo Yes Yes Yes Yes No10 Scriblio No No No No No11 Summon No No No No No12 SOPAC Yes Yes No Yes No13 Visualizer No No No No No14 VuFind Yes No Yes Yes No15 WorldCat Local Yes Yes Yes Yes No Total 47% 33% 40% 47% 20%
  • 11. Integrated Library Systems and Tagging• The survey includes 37 Major Integrated Library Systems (ILSs) - Tagging function in ILS - Tag could or tag list in OPAC, or both - Tag to start a new search - Tag to refine a search result
  • 12. 37 ILSs & TaggingLibrary Automation System Allow Users to add tags Tag Cloud Tag List Tag to start a new Tag to refine a search search Agent VERSO No No No No No Aleph 500 No No No No No Alexandria No No No No No Amlib No No No No No Apollo No No No No No Athena No No No No No Atriuum No No No No No Carl.X No No No No No Circulation Plus No No No No No Concourse No No No No No DB/TextWorks No No No No No Destiny No No No No No Dynix No No No No No EOS Web No No No No No Evergreen No No No No No Evolve No No No No No Genesis G3 Yes No No No No GLAS No No No No No
  • 13. 37 ILSs & Tagging - continued Horizon No No No No No InfoCentre No No No No No Innopac No No No No No Koha Yes Yes No Yes No Liberty3 No No No No No Library Solution No No No No No LibraryWorld No No No No No Mandarin M3 No No No No No Millennium No No No No No OPALS No No No No No Polaris No No No No No Portfolio No No No No No ResourceMate No No No No No Spydus No No No No NoUnicorn (Symphony) No No No No No Virtua No No No No No Voyager No No No No No Vubis Smart No No No No NoWinnebago Spectrum No No No No No Total 5.41% 2.70% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00%
  • 14. Integrated Library Systems and Tagging - continued• Only 2 out of 37 ILSs allow Tagging – Koha & Genesis G3 (5% ILSs)• Koha is the only ILS has tag cloud in it’s online catalog (OPAC)• Koha uses tags to enhance subject access• None ILS uses tags to refine search results
  • 15. Libraries & Tagging• Take Koha as an example ILS for the survey• Koha - Open Source Integrated Library System, created in 1999• A survey of tagging activities in 307 Koha implementers - 218 public libraries - 62 academic libraries - 27 school libraries
  • 16. Libraries & Tagging - continued• All tags in Koha Tag Cloud are created by users• Users can create tags in Koha for private or public• Tags were proved by librarians before adding to Cloud for public• External dictionary in Koha – a whitelist to verify terms added by users
  • 17. Tagging in 307 Koha OPACs90.00%80.00%70.00%60.00%50.00% Percentage (Tags Enabled)40.00% Percentage (Tags Disabled)30.00%20.00%10.00% 0.00% Public Academic School
  • 18. Tagging in 307 Koha OPACs - continued Total Total Percentage Percentage Total Libraries Libraries Library Type (Tags (Tags Libraries (Tags (Tags Enabled) Disabled) Enabled) Disabled) Public 218 107 49.08% 111 50.92% Academic 62 36 58.06% 26 41.94% School 27 6 22.22% 21 77.78% All Libraries 307 149 48.53% 158 51.47%
  • 19. Tagging in 307 Koha OPACs - continued• 149 out of 307 libraries encourage users to add tags to OPACs (51%) – Academic libraries: nearly 58% enabled – Public libraries: 49% enabled – School libraries: 22% enabled
  • 20. Users & Tagging• How much did users take advantage of Tagging?• Tag clouds grouped into 4 categories - Large cloud (over 50 tags) - Small cloud (Less than 50 tags) - Empty cloud (Tagging turned on, but no tags) - No cloud (Tagging turned off)
  • 21. Users & Tagging - continued90.00%80.00%70.00%60.00%50.00% Percentage (> 50 tags) Percentage (< 50 tags)40.00% Percentage (no tags)30.00% Percentage (tags disabled)20.00%10.00% 0.00% Public Academic School
  • 22. Users & Tagging - continued Tag Cloud in Public Libraries • 27% public libraries have large tag clouds for Large Tag Cloud (over subject access 27% 50 tags) Small Tag Cloud (less • More than half public51% than 50 tags) Empty Tag Cloud (no libraries do not encourage 17% tags) users add their own Tag Cloud not turned 5% on subject terms • 22% users are not interested in adding tags to catalogs
  • 23. Users & Tagging - continued Tag Cloud in Academic Libraries • Only 3% academic 3% libraries have large tag Large Tag Cloud (over clouds for subject access • 42% academic libraries do 50 tags)42% Small Tag Cloud (less than 50 tags) 44% Empty Tag Cloud (no not encourage users add tags) Tag Cloud not turned their own subject terms 11% on • Users in more than half academic libraries are not interested in adding tags to catalogs
  • 24. Users & Tagging - continued• Tag Cloud in Wagner College Koha OPAC (Sandbox)• Tags are simple terms created by students in their own language• Some tags are closer to subject headings• Searching by tags only retrieve limited titles For example: Search by tag “microbiology” getonly 3 titles, by subject “microbiology” can get 262titles
  • 25. Conclusion - Think outside the box• More systems need to include tagging capability in design (47% in discovery layers vs. 5% in ILS)• All libraries should give users the opportunity to tag. (49% enabled)• Find innovative ways to encourage users to participate in tagging
  • 26. Food for ThoughtMore research is needed for 1. Why public library users are more active in tagging? 2. Better subject access to combine user contributed tagging and keyword extraction into one tag cloud? 3. How to link/map LCSH to user contributed tags?
  • 27. Questions and Answers
  • 28. CreditsBreeding, M. (2012). Guides: Resources and content on relevant topics. In Library technologyguides: Key resources in the field of library automation [This site has comprehensivelistings of Integrated Library Systems and discovery tools]. Retrieved March 6, 2012,from http://www.librarytechnology.org/web/Breeding/guides/Kwan, Y., & Lois Mai, C. (2009). Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress subject headings:an exploratory study. Journal Of Documentation, 65(6), 872-900.Liu, C., Park, J., & Hu, X. (2010). User tags versus expert-assigned subject terms: A comparisonOf LibraryThing tags and Library of Congress Subject Headings. Journal Of InformationScience, 36(6), 763-779. doi:10.1177/0165551510386173Rolla, P. J. (2009). User Tags versus Subject Headings: Can User-Supplied Data ImproveSubject Access to Library Collections?. Library Resources & Technical Services, 53(3),174-184.Wetterstrom, M. (2008). The Complementarity of Tags and LCSH — A Tagging ExperimentAnd Investigation into Added Value in a New Zealand Library Context. New ZealandLibrary & Information Management Journal, 50(4), 296-310.Yi, K., & Chan, L. (2009). Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress subject headings: anexploratory study. Journal Of Documentation, 65(6), 872-900.