The new cooperative cataloging
| Published date | 06 March 2009 |
| Pages | 68-77 |
| Date | 06 March 2009 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830910942928 |
| Author | Tom Steele |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
THEME ARTICLE
The new cooperative cataloging
Tom Steele
University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to examine the social phenomenon known as tagging and its use in
libraries’ online catalogs, discussing folksonomies, social bookmarking, and tagging web sites. The
paper also seeks to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of a controlled vocabulary such as the
Library of Congress Subject Headings, and how tagging can assist the LCSH in information retrieval.
LibraryThing and the University of Pennsylvania’s PennTags are examined.
Design/methodology/approach – Review of recent literature in print and online, as well as
browsing Library OPACs using tagging, was the basis for the paper.
Findings – The paper concludes that access to information is the main purpose of cataloging, and
use of both traditional methods of cataloging as well as interactive methods such as tagging is a valid
method for reaching library users of the future.
Originality/value – The paper lists many problems and concerns of which to be aware, if a library
should choose to adopt tagging for their catalog. It looks at the options of using outside web sites to
provide the tags as well as creating tagging systems on the library’s web site itself. The focus of the
paper is how libraries can use tagging, as opposed to the phenomenon of tagging itself, as well as a
discussion of how tagging compares with controlled vocabularies.
Keywords Tagging, Networking,Cataloging
Paper type Viewpoint
In December 2006, Time Magazine named its person of the year: you. In doing so, they
gave Web 2.0 as the reason. Wikipedia, MySpace, and YouTube are a few of the many
web sites thatrely heavily on user interaction.Today’s information seekeris expecting to
participate, instead of only receive. Meanwhile, the online public access catalog (OPAC)
of the majority of libraries is comprised of recordsmade by librarians. The user is invited
to look, but not touch. Searching relies heavily on the user’s knowledge of a thesaurus,
such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). This is beginning to change.
At the Universityof Pennsylvania, users can tag internet resources withtheir own terms
for either future reference, or to help others find them. LibraryThing is a web site that
allows members to catalog their own resources, be it books, media, or other web sites.
These sites and others like them rely on user-created taxonomies instead of the
traditional thesauri. These taxonomies are known as folksonomies; a term created by
Thomas Vander Wal by combining taxonomy with folk.
What exactly is described by folksonomy? Unlike a taxonomy, a folksonomy is
created by those who are actually using the resources it classifies. These resources are
web-based, and may range from links to online photographs. The classification is done
with open-ended labels called tags. Because this tagging is done by the user, it is more
likely to match the vocabulary those interested in the resource will use. Like subject
headings, the tags link the resource to similar resources. Tagging works through a
process called social bookmarking. The resources are bookmarked, and the user
creates tags to label these bookmarks.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0737-8831.htm
LHT
27,1
68
Received 13 October 208
Revised 4 November 2008
Accepted 17 November 2008
Library Hi Tech
Vol. 27 No. 1, 2009
pp. 68-77
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0737-8831
DOI 10.1108/07378830910942928
To continue reading
Request your trial