Social tagging versus Expert created subject headings

Rahman, A.I.M. Jakaria Social tagging versus Expert created subject headings., 2012 Master Thesis thesis, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo, Norway. [Thesis]

[thumbnail of Rahman_Social tagging versus Expert created subject headings.pdf] Text
Rahman_Social tagging versus Expert created subject headings.pdf
Download (2MB)

English abstract

The purpose of the study was to investigate social tagging practice in science book context. In addition, it identified the usefulness of social tags as supplementary of controlled vocabulary to enhance the use of library resources. More specifically, this study examined to know to what extent the social tags match with controlled vocabulary, and whether or not any additional perception is provided by social tags to improve the accessibility and information retrieval in a digital environment. In both cases, the social tags were considered with respect to the appropriateness to the specific book. For the successful implementation of social tagging in library systems, there is a need to understand how users assign social tags to library collections, what vocabularies they use and how far the social tag relates to controlled vocabulary. This understanding can help libraries to decide on how to implement and review the social tagging. This study used a combination of both qualitative and quantitative research approaches. The LibraryThing website and Library of Congress Subject Headings were considered as a research site. Social tags have been collected from the LibraryThing website and LCSHs has been considered as controlled vocabulary. Twenty books from the science genre have been chosen purposefully. The sample has further been considered to include only those books that have also been available in the Library of Congress catalogue. Ten books have been taken from the academic group and the remaining were from the non-academic group. This study took into consideration only those social tags that occurred at least twice. A coding system has been developed to pull together all the similar social tags for further analysis. In the coding system, four broad categories have been defined, e.g., Social tags that match exactly with LCSHs, Social tags that match partially with LCSHs, Social tags that reflect bibliographic information and social tags that are user specific information. The last three categories were further sub-categorized. It is found that there is a clear difference between assigning expert created subject terms and social tagging practice to library books. Cataloguers assigned relatively few terms per book through the use of restricted and established vocabulary following firm rules, whereas, the end users enjoyed liberty with unlimited terms. More than fifty percent of social tags matched with expert created subject headings. The frequency of use of the social tags that matched with LCSHs terms was higher than the non-matched ones. The expert created subject headings were highly ranked in the social tags' lists, where end users more frequently assigned social tags that represented broader or narrower terms than the cataloguers’ assigned subject headings. In addition, the social tagging represented other aspects that could not be either covered within the strict subject headings assigned rules or cataloguing rules. Such diverse impressions can be seen as an access point to the same library collections according to users’ interest and opinions. This study revealed that as a standalone tool neither the controlled vocabulary nor the social tagging practice can work like a satisfactory information retrieval tool. A hybrid catalogue with combining both LCSHs and social tags would give its patrons the best of both worlds in terms of access to materials. This kind of practice may give more significant outcome for local research or university libraries where the users are more concentrated on a defined number of disciplines. Adapting users’ views in addition to controlled vocabulary through social tags may increase the efficiency of information retrieval process in library OPAC. This study implied both qualitative and quantitative support for the use of social tags in the library OPACs. The findings support many of the previous theories proposed in literature about social tagging and LCSHs. The qualitative analysis of social tags disclosed the diverse way of looking at the library resources by the end users in addition to subject descriptors.

Item type: Thesis (UNSPECIFIED)
Keywords: Social tags, Controlled vocabularies, Library of Congress Subject Headings, LibraryThing, Science genre, Web 2.0, Online Public Access Catalogue (OPAC)
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BI. User interfaces, usability.
I. Information treatment for information services > IE. Data and metadata structures.
Depositing user: A. I. M. Jakaria Rahman
Date deposited: 17 Aug 2015 02:34
Last modified: 17 Aug 2015 02:34
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/25587

References

Adler, M. (2009). Transcending Library Catalogs: A Comparative Study of Controlled Terms in Library of Congress Subject Headings and User-Generated Tags in LibraryThing for Transgender Books. Journal of Web Librarianship, 3(4), 309–331. doi:10.1080/19322900903341099

Akther, A., Kim, H.-N., Rawashdeh, M., & El Saddik, A. (2012). Applying Latent Semantic Analysis to Tag-Based Community Recommendations. In L. Kosseim & D. Inkpen (Eds.), Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 7310, pp. 1–12).

Ames, M., & Naaman, M. (2007). Why we tag: motivations for annotation in mobile and online media. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, CHI ’07 (pp. 971–980). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/1240624. 1240772

Anderson, J. D., & Hofmann., M. A. (2006). A fully faceted syntax for Library of Congress Subject Headings. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 43(1), 7–38.

Anfinnsen, S., Ghinea, G., & de Cesare, S. (2011). Web 2.0 and folksonomies in a library context. International Journal of Information Management, 31(1), 63–70. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.05.006

Ankolekar, A., Krötzsch, M., Tran, T., & Vrandečić, D. (2008). The two cultures: Mashing up Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 6(1), 70–75. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2007.11.005

Antell, K., & Huang, J. (2008). Subject searching success - Transaction logs, patron perceptions, and implications for library instruction. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 48(1), 68–76.

Antelman, K., Lynema, E., & Pace, A. K. (2006). Toward a twenty-first century library catalog. Information technology and libraries, 25(3), 128–139.

Arakji, R., Benbunan-Fich, R., & Koufaris, M. (2009). Exploring contributions of public resources in social bookmarking systems. Decision Support Systems, 47(3), 245–253. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2009.02.007

Bates, J., & Rowley, J. (2011). Social reproduction and exclusion in subject indexing: A comparison of public library OPACs and LibraryThing folksonomy. Journal of Documentation, 67(3), 431–448. doi:10.1108/00220411111124532

Bearman, D., & Trant, J. (2005). Social Terminology Enhancement through Vernacular Engagement. D-Lib Magazine, 11(09). doi:10.1045/september2005-bearman

Bertot, J. C., Berube, K., Devereaux, P., Dhakal, K., Powers, S., & Ray, J. (2012). Assessing the Usability of Worldcat Local: Findings and Considerations. Library Quarterly, 82(2), 207–221. doi:10.1086/664588

Bibliographic Services Task Force. (2005). Rethinking how we provide bibliographic services for the University of California. The University of California Libraries.

Brase, C. H., & Brase, C. P. (2006). Understandable Statistics (8th ed.). Brooks Cole.

Broughton, V. (2011). Essential Library of Congress Subject Headings (1st ed.). Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.

Carla S., R. (2010). Social Bookmarking in Academic Libraries: Trends and Applications. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(3), 219–227. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2010. 03.004

Carman, N. (2009). LibraryThing Tags and Library of Congress Subject Headings: a Comparison of Science Fiction and Fantasy Works. Victoria University of Wellington. Retrieved from http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1272

Cataloging Policy and Support Office. (2007). Library of Congress Subject Headings Pre- vs. Post-Coordination and Related Issues: Report for Beacher Wiggins, Director, Acquisitions & Bibliographic Access Directorate, Library Services, Library of Congress.

Cattuto, C., Loreto, V., & Pietronero, L. (2007). Semiotic dynamics and collaborative tagging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(5), 1461–1464. doi:10.1073/pnas.0610487104

Chan, L. M. (2005). Library of Congress Subject Headings: Principles and Application (4th ed.). Libraries Unlimited.

Chan, L. M. (2011). Social bookmarking and subject indexing. In P. Landry, L. Bultrini, E. T. O’Neill, & S. K. Roe (Eds.), Subject Access: Preparing for the Future, IFLA Series on Bibliographic Control (Vol. 42, pp. 127–142). De Gruyter.

Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2010). Research Methods, Design, and Analysis, 11th Edition (11th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

Conradi, E. (2009). to_be_classified: A Facet Analysis of a Folksonomy (Master thesis). Retrieved from https://oda.hio.no/jspui/handle/10642/313

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Da, N., Ke-qing, H., Rong, P., & Jian-xiao, L. (2011). A Multi-dimensional Social Tagging Method for Semantic Web Services. Services Computing (SCC), 2011 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 735 –736). doi:10.1109/SCC.2011.49

Drabenstott, K. M., Simcox, S., & Fenton, E. G. (1999). End-user understanding of subject headings in library catalogs. Library Resources & Technical Services, 43(3), 140–160.

Emanuel, J. (2011). Usability of the VuFind Next-Generation Online Catalog. Information Technology and Libraries, 30(1), 44–52.

Feinberg, M. (2011). An examination of authority in social classification systems. Advances in Classification Research Online, 17(1), 1–11. doi:10.7152/acro.v17i1.12490

Fugelstad, P., Dwyer, P., Filson Moses, J., Kim, J., Mannino, C. A., Terveen, L., & Snyder, M. (2012). What makes users rate (share, tag, edit...)?: predicting patterns of participation in online communities. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW ’12 (pp. 969–978). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/2145204.2145349

Furner, J. (2007). User tagging of library resources: Toward a framework for system evaluation. World library and information congress: 73rd IFLA general conference and council. Durban, South Africa.

Gabriela, G. (2009). To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 478–482. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.087

Garcia-Plaza, A. P., Zubiaga, A., Fresno, V., & Martinez, R. (2012). Reorganizing clouds: A study on tag clustering and evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(10), 9483–9493. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.108

Golder, S. A., & Huberman, B. (2006). Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 198–208. doi:10.1177/0165551506062337

Good, B. M., Tennis, J. T., & Wilkinson, M. D. (2009). Social tagging in the life sciences: characterizing a new metadata resource for bioinformatics. Bmc Bioinformatics, 10. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-10-313

Halpin, H., & Place, B. (2007). The complex dynamics of collaborative tagging. In Proceeding of International World Wide Web Conference (pp. 211–220). ACM Press.

Hassan-Montero, Y., & Herrero-Solana, V. (2006). Improving tag-clouds as visual information retrieval interfaces. International Conference on Multidisciplinary Information Sciences and Technologies (pp. 25–28).

Hollenstein, L., & Purves, R. (2012). Exploring place through user-generated content: Using Flickr tags to describe city cores. Journal of Spatial Information Science, (1), 21–48. doi:10.5311/josis.v0i1.13

Islam, K. M. S. (2008). Essentials of Cataloguing and Classifications. Dhaka: New Progati.

Jäschke, R., Hotho, A., Schmitz, C., Ganter, B., & Stumme, G. (2008). Discovering shared conceptualizations in folksonomies. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 6(1), 38–53. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2007.11.004

Johnson, S. L. (2010). Review of LibraryThing. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 4(4), 220–221. doi:10.1080/1533290X.2010.524832

Kajewski, M. A. (2007). Emerging technologies changing our service delivery models. Electronic Library, 25(4), 420–429. doi:10.1108/0264047070779835

Kakali, C., & Papatheodorou, C. (2010). Exploitation of folksonomies in subject analysis. Library & Information Science Research, 32(3), 192–202. doi:10.1016/j.lisr. 2010.04.001

Kim, Y.-M., & Abbas, J. (2010). Adoption of Library 2.0 Functionalities by Academic Libraries and Users: A Knowledge Management Perspective. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(3), 211–218. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2010.03.003

Kipp, M. E. I. (2006). Complementary or Discrete Contexts in Online Indexing: A Comparison of User, Creator, and Intermediary Keywords. Proceedings of the Canadian Association for Information Science. York University, Toronto. Retrieved from http://eprints.rclis.org/bitstream/10760/8771/1/mkipp-caispaper.pdf

Kipp, M. E. I., & Campbell, D. G. (2006). Patterns and Inconsistencies in Collaborative Tagging Systems: An Examination of Tagging Practices. Retrieved from http://eprints.rclis.org/handle/10760/8720#.T9IDPJjpURo

Kipp, M. E. I., & Campbell, D. G. (2010). Searching with Tags: Do Tags Help Users Find Things? Knowledge Organization, 37(4), 239–255.

Kirtland, M., & Cochrane, P. (1982). Critical Views of LCSH - Library of Congress Subject Headings A Bibliographic and Bibliometric Essay. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 1(2-3), 71–94. doi:10.1300/J104v01n02_04

Kiu, C.-C., & Tsui, E. (2011). TaxoFolk: A hybrid taxonomy–folksonomy structure for knowledge classification and navigation. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), 6049–6058. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.11.014

Lambiotte, R., & Ausloos, M. (2006). Collaborative tagging as a tripartite network. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3993, 1114–1117. doi:10.1007/11758532_152

Landry, P., Bultrini, L., O’Neill, E. T., & Roe, S. K. (Eds.). (2011). Subject Access: Preparing for the Future. IFLA Series on Bibliographic Control (Vol. 42). De Gruyter.

Lawson, K. G. (2009). Mining Social Tagging Data for Enhanced Subject Access for Readers and Researchers. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(6), 574–582.

Library of Congress. (2008). Subject cataloguing mannual: subject headings. Washington DC: Library of Congress.

Library of Congress Authorities. (2011). Retrieved February 24, 2012, from http://authorities.loc.gov/help/auth-faq.htm

Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in Educational Research: From Theory to Practice (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Lopes, M. I., & Beall, J. (Eds.). (1999). Principles underlying subject heading languages (Vol. 21). K G Saur Verlag Gmbh & Co.

Lu, C., Park, J., & Hu, X. (2010). User tags versus expert-assigned subject terms: A comparison of LibraryThing tags and Library of Congress Subject Headings. Journal of Information Science, 36(6), 763–779. doi:10.1177/0165551510386173

Lund, W., & Washburn, A. (2009). Patrons Cataloging? The Role and Quality of Patron Tagging in Item Description. Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries (pp. 263 – 271). Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/national/seattle/papers/263.pdf

Marvasti, A. B. (2003). Qualitative Research in Sociology. Sage Publications Ltd.

Matthews, Brian, Jones, C., Puzon, B., Moon, J., Tudhope, D., Golub, K., & Nielsen, M. L. (2010). An evaluation of enhancing social tagging with a knowledge organization system. Aslib Proceedings, 62(4-5), 447–465. doi:10.1108/00012531011074690

Matthews, Bob, & Ross, L. (2010). Research Methods: a practical guide for the social sciences. Longman.

Matusiak, K. K. (2006). Towards user-centered indexing in digital image collections. OCLC Systems & Services, 22(4), 283–298.

McTavish, J. (2011). A domain-analytic perspective on sexual health in LCSH and RVM. NASKO, 3(1), 83–93.

Mika, P. (2007). Ontologies are us: A unified model of social networks and semantics. Journal of Web Semantics, 5(1), 5–15. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2006.11.002

Miller, J., & McCarthy, S. (Eds.). (2010). Sears List of Subject Headings (20th ed.). Hw Wilson Co.

Miotto, R., & Orio, N. (2011). Accessing Music Digital Libraries by Combining Semantic Tags and Audio Content. In M. Agosti, F. Esposito, C. Meghini, & N. Orio (Eds.), Digital Libraries and Archives, Communications in Computer and Information Science (Vol. 249, pp. 26–37). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Morrison, J. P. (2008). Tagging and searching: Search retrieval effectiveness of folksonomies on the World Wide Web. Information Processing & Management, 44(4), 1562–1579. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2007.12.010

Munk, T. B., & Mork, K. (2007). Folksonomies, tagging communities, and tagging strategies - An empirical study. Knowledge Organization, 34(3), 115–127.

Needleman, M. (2007). Web 2.0/Lib 2.0—What Is It? (If It’s Anything at All). Serials Review, 33(3), 202–203.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0—Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved May 8, 2012, from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

Olivier, G. (2011). Folksonomies: Spontaneous crowd sourcing with online early detection potential? Futures, (0). doi:10.1016/j.futures.2011.10.008

Olson, H. A. (2000). Difference, Culture and Change: The Untapped Potential of LCSH. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 29(1-2), 53–71. doi:10.1300/J104v29n01_04

Peters, I. (2009). Folksonomies. Indexing and Retrieval in Web 2.0 (1st ed.). De Gruyter.

Peterson, E. (2006). Beneath the Metadata: Some Philosophical Problems with Folksonomy. D-Lib Magazine, 12(11). doi:10.1045/november2006-peterson

Pirmann, C. M. (2011). Using Tags to Improve Findability in Library OPACs: A Usability Study of LibraryThing for Libraries. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2142/18918

Quintarelli, E. (2005). Folksonomies: power to the people. Paper presented at ISKO Italy- UniMIB meeting, Milan, Italy, June 24, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.iskoi.org/doc/folksonomies.htm

Rolla, P. J. (2009). User Tags versus Subject Headings. Library Resources & Technical Services, 53(3), 174–184.

Sadeh, T. (2007). Time for a change: new approaches for a new generation of library users. New Library World, 108(7/8), 307–316. doi:10.1108/03074800710763608

Smith, T. (2007). Cataloging and You: Measuring the Efficacy of a Folksonomy for Subject Analysis (Conference Paper). School of Information Resources and Library Science and Learning Technologies Center, University of Arizona. Retrieved from http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/106434

Spalding, T. (2007). When tags work and when they don’t: Amazon and LibraryThing « The Thingology Blog. Retrieved from http://www.librarything.com/blogs/ thingology/2007/02/when-tags-work-and-when-they-dont-amazon-and-librarything/

Srinivasan, R., Boast, R., Furner, J., & Becvar, K. M. (2009). Digital Museums and Diverse Cultural Knowledges: Moving Past the Traditional Catalog. Information Society, 25(4), 265–278. doi:10.1080/01972240903028714

Steele, T. (2009). The new cooperative cataloging. Library Hi Tech, 27(1), 68–77. doi:10.1108/07378830910942928

Stone, A. T. (2000). The Lcsh Century: One Hundred Years With the Library of Congress Subject Headings System (1st ed.). Routledge.

Stvilia, B., & Joergensen, C. (2010). Member Activities and Quality of Tags in a Collection of Historical Photographs in Flickr. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2477–2489. doi:10.1002/asi.21432

Thomas, M., Caudle, D. M., & Schmitz, C. M. (2009). To tag or not to tag? Library Hi Tech, 27(3), 411–434. doi:10.1108/07378830910988540

Tonkin, E., Corrado, E. M., Moulaison, H. L., Moulaison, H. L., Resmini, A., & Zhang, Q. (2008). Collaborative and Social Tagging Networks. Ariande, 54. Retrieved from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue54/tonkin-et-al

Torres, D., Diaz, A., Skaf-Molli, H., & Molli, P. (2011). Semdrops: A Social Semantic Tagging Approach for Emerging Semantic Data. Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT), 2011 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 340 –347). doi:10.1109/WI-IAT.2011.51

Trant, J. (2006). Exploring the potential for social tagging and folksonomy in art museums: Proof of concept. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 12(1), 83–105. doi:10.1080/13614560600802940

Trant, Jennifer. (2009). Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework. Journal of Digital Information, 10(1), 1–44.

Tripathi, M., & Kumar, S. (2010). Use of Web 2.0 tools in academic libraries: A reconnaissance of the international landscape. The International Information & Library Review, 42(3), 195–207. doi:10.1016/j.iilr.2010.07.005

van Hooland, S. (2006). From spectator to annotator: possibilities offered by user-generated metadata for digital cultural collections. Presented at the CILIP Cataloguing Indexing Group Annual Conference, University of East Anglia, UK.

Vaughan, J. (2010). Insights into the Commons on Flickr. Portal: Libraries and the Academy. Las Vegas: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Voorbij, H. (2012). The value of LibraryThing tags for academic libraries. Online Information Review, 36(2), 3–3.

Voorbij, H. J. (1998). Title keywords and subject descriptors: A comparison of subject search entries of books in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of Documentation, 54(4), 466–476. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000007178

Voß, J. (2007). Tagging, Folksonomy & Co-Renaissance of Manual Indexing? Proceedings of the International Symposium of Information Science (Vol. 234–254). Cologne, Germany.

Weaver, M. (Trans.). (2007). Contextual metadata: faceted schemas in virtual library communities. Library Hi Tech, 25(4), 579–594. doi:10.1108/07378830710840527

Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder. Times Books.

Westcott, J., Chappell, A., & Lebel, C. (2009). LibraryThing for libraries at Claremont. Library Hi Tech, 27(1), 78–81. doi:10.1108/07378830910942937

Wetterstrom, M. (2008). The Complementarity of tags and LCSH - a tagging experiment and investigation into added value in a New Zealand library context. The New Zealand Library and Information management Journal, 50(4), 292–306.

Working group on the future of bibliographic control. (2008). On the Record: Report of The Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (pp. 1–44). Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-ontherecord-jan08-final.pdf

Yang, L., Sun, T., Zhang, M., & Mei, Q. (2012). We know what @you #tag: does the dual role affect hashtag adoption? Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web, WWW ’12 (pp. 261–270). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/2187836.2187872

Yi, K. (2008). A conceptual framework for improving information retrieval in folksonomy using Library of Congress subject headings. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 1–6. doi:10.1002/meet.2008.1450450368

Yi, K. (2010). A Semantic Similarity Approach to Predicting Library of Congress Subject Headings for Social Tags. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1658–1672. doi:10.1002/asi.21351

Yi, K., & Chan, L. M. (2009). Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress subject headings: an exploratory study. Journal of Documentation, 65(6), 872–900. doi:10.1108/00220410910998906


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS