Folksonomies as Subject AccessA 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, USASharon Q. Yang, Rider University, NJ, USA
Overview
1. Introduction– What is folksonomy?– Is folksonomy useful as subject access?
2. Survey-purpose and methodology3. Findings and discussion4. Conclusion
What is Folksonomy?
• Taxonomy + folk = folksonomy• Classification of resources by users• Describe resources in users’ own language• Tags and tag clouds are folksonomy
Example of Tag Cloud
Arcadia Public Library (Arcadia, California) - Feb12, 2012
Folksonomy as Subject Access?
Past research compared LCSH with folksonomy in LibraryThing:– 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
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?
Methodology
Systems (Marshall Breeding’s Library Technology Guide)– Discovery layers (15)– OAPC of Integrated Library System (37)
Libraries– Koha OPACs (307)
Users– Koha OPACS (307)
Discovery Tools & Tagging
The 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
15 Discovery Tools & Tagging
Systems Allow Users to add tags
Tag Cloud Tag list Tag to start a new search
Tag to refine a search
1 AquaBrowser Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2 AXIELL ARENA No No No No No
3 Blacklight No No No No No
4 Biblio Commons Yes No Yes Yes Yes
5 EBSCO Discover Service No No No No No
6 Encore Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
7 Endeca No No No No No
8 Enterprise No No No No No
9 Primo Yes Yes Yes Yes No
10 Scriblio No No No No No
11 Summon No No No No No
12 SOPAC Yes Yes No Yes No
13 Visualizer No No No No No
14 VuFind Yes No Yes Yes No
15 WorldCat Local Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Total 47% 33% 40% 47% 20%
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
37 ILSs & TaggingLibrary Automation System Allow Users to add tags Tag Cloud Tag List Tag to start a new search Tag to refine a 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
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 No
Unicorn (Symphony) No No No No No
Virtua No No No No No
Voyager No No No No No
Vubis Smart No No No No No
Winnebago Spectrum No No No No No
Total 5.41% 2.70% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00%
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 the online catalog (OPAC)
• Koha uses tags to enhance subject access• None ILS uses tags to refine search results
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
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
Tagging in 307 Koha OPACs
Public Academic School 0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Percentage (Tags Enabled) Percentage (Tags Disabled)
Tagging in 307 Koha OPACs - continued
Library Type Total Libraries
Total Libraries
(Tags Enabled)
Percentage (Tags
Enabled)
Total Libraries
(Tags Disabled)
Percentage (Tags
Disabled)
Public218 107 49.08% 111 50.92%
Academic62 36 58.06% 26 41.94%
School27 6 22.22% 21 77.78%
All Libraries 307 149 48.53% 158 51.47%
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
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)
Users & Tagging - continued
Public Academic School 0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Percentage (> 50 tags) Percentage (< 50 tags) Percentage (no tags)Percentage (tags disabled)
A Test of Tagging• Tag Cloud in Wagner College Koha OPAC – a test
(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
tag “microbiology” => 3 titles subject “microbiology” => 262 titles
Tag Cloud in Wagner College Koha OPAC
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
Food for Thought
More research is needed for1. 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?
Questions and Answers
CreditsBreeding, M. (2012). Guides: Resources and content on relevant topics. In Library technologyguides: Key resources in the field of library automation [This site has comprehensive listings 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:10.1177/0165551510386173
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.
Wetterstrom, M. (2008). The Complementarity of Tags and LCSH — A Tagging Experiment And Investigation into Added Value in a New Zealand Library Context. New Zealand Library & Information Management Journal, 50(4), 296-310.
Yi, K., & Chan, L. (2009). Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress subject headings: an exploratory study. Journal Of Documentation, 65(6), 872-900.