首页> 外文期刊>Library hi tech >To tag or not to tag?
【24h】

To tag or not to tag?

机译:要标记还是不标记?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Purpose – The purpose of this article is to provide a quantitative analysis of the extent to which folksonomies replicate the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) to see if folksonomies would successfully complement cataloger-supplied subject headings in library catalogs. Design/methodology/approach – The paper compares social tags and LC subject headings for ten books from various library-related applications including next generation OPACs and LibraryThing by ranking tags and subject headings using scales modified from research by Golder and Huberman,Voorbij, and Kipp. Findings – Social tagging does indeed augment LCSH by providing additional access to resources. Research limitations/implications – Several of our applications lacked tags for the books we chose in our study. Tags are primarily taken from LibraryThing. Practical implications – A hybrid catalog combining both LCSH and a folksonomy would result in richer metadata and be stronger than the sum of its parts, giving patrons the best of both worlds in terms of access to materials. Originality/value – This paper supplies quantitative support for the use of folksonomies in a library’s catalog. The data also supports many of the previous theories proposed in literature about folksonomies and social tagging.
机译:目的–本文的目的是对民俗分类法在多大程度上复制国会图书馆主题标题(LCSH)进行定量分析,以了解民俗分类法是否可以成功地补充图书馆目录中由编目者提供的主题标题。设计/方法/方法–本文比较了十种来自与图书馆相关的应用(包括下一代OPAC和LibraryThing)的书籍的社会标签和LC主题标题,方法是使用由Golder和Huberman,Voorbij和Kipp修改后的比例对标签和主题标题进行排名。调查结果–社交标签确实通过提供对资源的额外访问而确实增强了LCSH。研究的局限性/含意-我们的一些应用程序缺少我们在研究中选择的书籍的标签。标签主要来自LibraryThing。实际意义–结合LCSH和民俗疗法的混合目录将产生更丰富的元数据,并且比其各个部分的总和更强大,从而使顾客在获取材料方面两全其美。原创性/价值–本文为图书馆目录中使用民俗分类法提供了定量支持。数据还支持文献中提出的有关民俗分类法和社会标签的许多先前理论。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号