Consumidores de información y descripción de documentos: las etiquetas de los usuarios en los catálogos de bibliotecas

Fernández-Ramos, Andrés . Consumidores de información y descripción de documentos: las etiquetas de los usuarios en los catálogos de bibliotecas., 2017 In: Tendencias multidisciplinarias del uso de los metadatos. UNAM, pp. 117-128. [Book chapter]

[img]
Preview
Text
tendencias_metadatos2017.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (138kB) | Preview

English abstract

In this review paper, the scientific literatura about the use of users' tags in library catalogs is analysed. The main advantages and disadvantages of this kind of documents descriptions are described, and the principal trends of the use of tags in library catalogs are commented.

Spanish abstract

Se hace una revisión sobre la literatura científica sobre el uso de las etiquetas o tags que utilizan los usuarios para describir el contenido de los documentos en los catálogos de bibliotecas. Se describen las ventajas e inconvenientes del uso de estas etiquetas y se analiza el uso que se hace de ellas.

Item type: Book chapter
Keywords: tags, catalogs
Subjects: H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HM. OPACs.
H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HT. Web 2.0, Social networks
Depositing user: Dr. Andrés Fernández-Ramos
Date deposited: 24 Mar 2018 13:38
Last modified: 24 Mar 2018 13:38
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/32438

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. http://doi.org/10.1080/19322900903341099

Alonso Arévalo, J., Cordón García, J. A., Gómez Díaz, R., & García-Delgado Giménez, B. (2014). Uso y aplicación de herramientas 2.0 en los servicios, producción, organización y difusión de la información en la biblioteca universitaria. Investigación Bibliotecológica, 28(64), 51–74. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0187-358X2014000300004&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=pt

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. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20864994

Bianco, C. E. (2009). Medical librarians’ uses and perceptions of social tagging. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 97(2), 136–139. http://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.97.2.012

Casey, M. E., & Savastinuk, L. C. (2006). Library 2.0: Service for the Next-Generation Library. Library Journal, 131(14), 40–42. Retrieved from search.proquest.com\nhttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=22171693&site=ehost-live

Clements, L., & Liew, C. L. (2016). Talking about tags: An exploratory study of librarians’ perception and use of social tagging in a public library. The Electronic Library, 34(2), 289–301. http://doi.org/10.1108/EL-12-2014-0216

Fast, K. V., & Campbell, D. G. (2005). “I still like Google”: University student perceptions of searching OPACs and the web. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 138–146. http://doi.org/10.1002/meet.1450410116

Gerolimos, M. (2013). Tagging for Libraries: A Review of the Effectiveness of Tagging Systems for Library Catalogs. Journal of Library Metadata, 13(1), 36–58. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19386389.2013.778730

Hassan-Montero, Y., & Herrero-Solana, V. (2006). Improving Tag-Clouds as Visual Information Retrieval Interfaces. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multidisciplinary Information Science and Technologies (pp. 25–28). http://doi.org/10.1088/0268-1242/25/2/024015

Holmberg, K., Huvila, I., Kronqvist-Berg, M., & Widén-Wulff, G. (2009). What is Library 2.0? Journal of Documentation, 65(4), 668–681. http://doi.org/10.1108/00220410910970294

Kim, H.-L., Decker, S., & Breslin, J. G. (2010). Representing and sharing folksonomies with semantics. Journal of Information Science, 36(1), 57–72. http://doi.org/10.1177/0165551509346785

Lee, Y. Y., & Yang, S. Q. (2012). Folksonomies as Subject Access - A Survey of Tagging in Library Online Catalogs and Discovery Layers. In IFLA Annual Conference (pp. 1–12).

Library of Congress 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. Retrieved from https://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-ontherecord-jan08-final.pdf

Lu, K., & Kipp, M. E. I. (2014). Understanding the retrieval effectiveness of collaborative tags and author keywords in different retrieval environments: An experimental study on medical collections. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 483–500. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22985

Lund, W., & Washburn, A. (2009). Patrons Cataloging? The Role and Quality of Patron Tagging in Item Description. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries (pp. 263–271). Retrieved from http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2217&context=facpub

Macgregor, G., & McCulloch, E. (2006). Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool. Library Review, 55(5), 291–300. http://doi.org/10.1108/00242530610667558

Macías González, J., & Pérez Casas, P. (2008). No es oro todo lo que reluce: una aproximación al nuevo concepto de catálogo social. Mi biblioteca, (13), 88–98. Retrieved from https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2593447

Margaix-Arnal, D. (2008). El Opac 2.0: Puerta De Acceso a Los Contenidos De La Biblioteca. In IV Congreso Nacional de Bibliotecas Públicas. Retrieved from http://eprints.rclis.org/3802/

Mendes, L. H., Quinonez-Skinner, J., & Skaggs, D. (2009). Subjecting the catalog to tagging. Library Hi Tech, 27(1), 30–41. http://doi.org/Article

Noorhidawati, A., Hanum, N. F., & Zohoorian-Fooladi, N. (2013). Social Tagging in a Scholarly Digital Library Environment: Users’ Perspectives. Information Research, 18(3), C43. Retrieved from http://www.informationr.net/ir/18-3/colis/paperC43.html#.V2BxxI-cE2w

Noruzi, A. (2006). Folksonomies: (Un)Controlled Vocabulary? Knowledge Organization, 33(4), 199 – 203.

Pecoskie, J., Spiteri, L. F., & Tarulli, L. (2014). OPACs, Users, and Readers’ Advisory: Exploring the Implications of User-Generated Content for Readers’ Advisory in Canadian Public Libraries. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 52(4), 1–23. http://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2014.891166

Porter, J. (2013). Folksonomies in the library: their impact on user experience, and their implications for the work of librarians. The Australian Library Journal, 60(3), 248–255. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00049670.2011.10722621?src=recsys

Rolla, P. J. (2009). User Tags versus Subject Headings Can User-Supplied Data Improve Subject Access to Library Collections? Library Resources & Technical Services, 53(3), 174–184. http://doi.org/Article

Spiteri, L. F. (2006). The Use of Folksonomies in Public Library Catalogues. The Serials Librarian, 51(2), 75–89. http://doi.org/10.1300/J123v51n02

Spiteri, L. F., & Tarulli, L. (2012). Social Discovery Systems in Public Libraries: If We Build Them, Will They Come? Library Trends, 61(1), 132–147. http://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2012.0019

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

Voorbij, H. (2012). The value of LibraryThing tags for academic libraries. Online Information Review, 36, 196–217. http://doi.org/10.1108/14684521211229039

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


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item