Site Loader
Rock Street, San Francisco

Abstraction

Aim: the intent of this literature reappraisal is to show the advantages and disadvantages of the execution of LibraryThing for Libraries ( LTFL ) in libraries as an enhancement tool for resource find in the catalog.

Design/methodology/approach: this paper reviews the literature on societal tagging, societal cataloging, Opac 2.0 and LibraryThing. It provides an overview of the use of LTFL as an sweetening of library online catalog. It analyzes critical issues in societal tagging and folksonomies, concentrating on those related to books and libraries.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Findingss: based on the literature available, use of LTFL is distributing and enhances findability in the library online catalog. Some of its advantages have to make with its users labeling which represents a natural linguistic communication use and can potentially be used to ease information retrieval, but besides LibraryThing has faced some challenges related to the employment of folksonomies: level categorization with no hierarchal organisation ; synonymy, lexical ambiguity and plurals in the tagging vocabulary ; the degree of deepness that should be applied to tickets ; user purpose in labeling ; writer name format ; and, eventually, covering with current linguistic communications are the chief illustrations of disputing issues. More research in this country is needed to happen ways to better existing challenges and to ease the procedure of using LTFL content in the OPAC.

Originality/value: this paper, every bit far as acknowledge by the writers, is the first literature reappraisal focused on the execution of LTFL in libraries.

Keywords: LibraryThing, Social cataloging, Opac 2.0, Online catalogues, Tagging, Folksonomies, Libraries

Paper type: Literature reappraisal

1. Introduction

From Web 2.0 to Library 2.0, societal package has attained a place of importance in the proviso and selling of library services to users. From societal webs like Facebook and MySpace to societal cataloging ventures such as LibraryThing for Libraries ( LTFL ) , more and more libraries of all sizes and types are fall ining in the migration to Library 2.0.

Possibly one of the societal webs with the greatest promise for libraries today, LTFL surely seems to keep a great trade of potency for libraries seeking to heighten their offerings with Web 2.0 tools to which frequenters will react positively. However, the debut of any new tool can take to unexpected challenges. For this ground, it is of import for any library sing implementing LTFL to see all of its possible benefits and drawbacks. Henceforth, the intent of our literature reappraisal will be to research these benefits and drawbacks, in the hope that libraries will be able to do an informed determination about whether LTFL is a good tantrum for their several establishments.

In order to adequately analyze the bing literature sing the benefits and drawbacks of implementing LTFL, we have elaborated a multi-pronged hunt scheme to look into diverse beginnings of information:

The keywords “ Library thing ” as a phrase OR Librarything OR LTFL ( Library Thing for Libraries ) AND library OR libraries were used. We besides searched for OPAC 2.0 OR societal cataloging. Our principle for this is straightforward: the focal point of our work is the societal cataloging package LibraryThing as it is applied in libraries. The types of paperss retrieved were full-text diary or conference articles published between 2005 and 2009. The twelvemonth 2005 was used as a modification day of the month because this was the twelvemonth LibraryThing was foremost released. Commercial databases EBSCO, SpringerLink, Emerald, Proquest, ISI, SAGE, JSTOR, and Gale General Reference Gold were used. However, we did non happen any relevant articles in Proquest, SAGE or JSTOR. We besides applied the same seeking standards to hunts in Google Scholar and the E-LIS depository.

The five writers of this literature reappraisal were pupils in the class Information and Knowledge Management taught by Professor Sirje Virkus at Tallinn University in spring of 2009 as portion of the Erasmus Mundus Master class Digital Library Learning ( DILL ) . The pupil writers completed hunts in the above-named databases. Each pupil became an expert in a peculiar facet of LTFL, and read articles on pertinent subjects. All five contributed article sum-ups, which were so sorted into assorted classs and placed under appropriate subheadings within the comprehensive concluding papers. The concluding construction follows a logical patterned advance from issues get downing with Web 2.0 and traveling on to The Library as a Social Space, Library 2.0, LibraryThing and LibraryThing for Libraries, LibraryThing for Libraries as OPAC 2.0, Advantages of Implementing LibraryThing for Libraries as OPAC 2.0, and eventually, Disadvantages of Implementing LibraryThing for Libraries as OPAC 2.0. The selected order is intended to get down by supplying a broader overview of issues associating to Web 2.0, and to so come on to a treatment of the more specific issues associating to execution of LTFL.

1.1. Web 2.0

Once the sphere of web interior decorators, computing machine scientists, and other technically literate professionals, content writing tools have been opened up to the multitudes with the debut of Web 2.0 societal package. Web 2.0 represents a radical measure in the development of the Internet, with easiness of usage as the primary characteristic. The term Web 2.0 was foremost coined in 2004, and it is intended to embrace Internet architecture that is characterized by “ design forms in a configuration of new coevals Web applications which may supply an substructure for more dynamic user engagement, societal interaction and coaction. ” ( CSA Glossary, n.d. , parity. Web 2.0 ) As an added fillip, unlike traditional applications which are installed on computing machines, Web 2.0 package is hosted remotely and accessed via the Internet, necessitating small to no installing attempt on the portion of users.

Web 2.0 has revolutionized users ‘ relationship with the Internet, altering them from inactive receivers of content to active writers, and enabling users to show themselves to a planetary audience as could barely be imagined merely a few old ages ago. As a effect, communicating and coaction have become easier and more effectual. Users can plan their ain profiles, in consequence showing themselves to the universe, and connect to other users through the usage of societal webs.

Additionally, Web 2.0 has led to the outgrowth of a new signifier of information categorization. Users can sort content and ease its retrieval through the usage of tagging, which in bend leads to the development of folksonomies. Folksonomy is a term invented to embrace the construct of the common people, or “ common people, ” making a taxonomy, which is a classification or categorization of points for seeking intents. ( PC Magazine Encyclopedia, parity. Taxonomy ) In a pattern besides known as “ societal tagging, ” folksonomies allow users and community members to “ label content [ … ] based on their personal penchants ” and “ to add remarks or information that other users can take advantage of when looking for or forming their ain information. ” ( University of Toronto Taxonomy Guide, 2004, parity. Folksonomies )

1.2. The Library as a Social Space

Merely as with Web 2.0 tools the Internet has become a societal infinite, the physical library itself is progressively being seen by users as a societal infinite. Some users now see the library non merely as a topographic point for survey and books, but besides as a topographic point for socialisation or a community centre, with countries for group work and societal interaction. Secker & A ; Price ( 2007 ) province that “ many public libraries in the US, and more late in the UK, are acknowledging that they play an of import function as a ‘third topographic point. ‘ The support to set the IT substructure in topographic point in UK public libraries ( The People ‘s Network ) means that all public libraries have Internet entree. Many are besides widening their gap hours, supplying imbibing and feeding installations and seeking to agitate off their image of being merely topographic points of books. ” ( p. 8 )

This position of the physical library as a societal infinite has the potency to besides impact other library services. Secker & A ; Price ( 2007 ) relate one interesting illustration in which a pupil was holding problem with the library watchwords for the databases and was waiting at the library desk. She saw another pupil with some books about similar subjects to her ain, so they started a conversation and left together. Rather than being a inactive receiver of cognition and inquiring aid of an authorization ( in this instance the bibliothec ) , the pupil took a proactive attack and sought the aid of a equal. This illustration is cited to show the potency for the usage of peer-mediated societal package in the library, leting the wisdom of the multitudes ( in the signifier of societal cataloging or other library-specific societal applications ) to be spread easy and rapidly, and non by opportunity, as in the illustration.

Social package has the possible to make synergistic infinites that provide a different type of support to users, particularly the users who prefer non to see physical libraries installings, but prefer instead to see library web sites or OPACs. Particularly among the younger coevalss ( although the age scope of those utilizing societal package grows by the twenty-four hours, due both to increased involvement and to tools that have become easier to utilize for those with a less proficient background ) , other types of societal package such as Facebook have proven to be appealing for users, and therefore offering a type of societal package whose focal point is books could be a really powerful plus for the library.

1.3. Library 2.0

Casey foremost coined the term Library 2.0 in his web log Library Crunch. Casey, along with Savastinuk, addresses the inquiry, “ What makes a service Library 2.0? Any service, physical or practical, that successfully reaches users, is evaluated often, and makes usage of client input is a Library 2.0 service. Even older, traditional services can be Library 2.0 if standards are met. Similarly, being new is non adequate to do a service Library 2.0. ” ( Casey & A ; Savastinuk, 2006, parity. 2.0, all the clip ) Fichter ( 2006 ) provides the undermentioned expression: “ Library 2.0 = ( books ‘n material + people + extremist trust ) ten engagement. ” In short, we can province that Library 2.0 is a library that rethinks its merchandises and services to outdo usage the potency of Web 2.0, making an information services environment driven by clients, societal interaction, and engineering. Some writers acknowledge the fact that there is no professional consensus on a definition for Library 2.0. ( Holmberg, Huvila, Kronqvist-Berg, & A ; Wid & A ; eacute ; n-Wulff, p. 1 ) The aforesaid writers completed a survey in which they gathered a aggregation of responses from bibliothecs who were asked merely, “ What is a Library 2.0? ” The writers identify different primary constituents of Library 2.0: “ interactivity, users, engagement, libraries and library services, web and Web 2.0, societal facets, and engineering and tools. The interactivity constituent appeared to be the most cardinal one, which connected most strongly with the remainder of the impressions. It is suggested that none of the constituents may be left aside when sing whether a phenomenon belongs to Library 2.0 or non. ” ( Holmberg, Huvila, Kronqvist-Berg, & A ; Wid & A ; eacute ; n-Wulff, 2009, p. 11 )

2. LIBRARYTHING

2.1. LibraryThing and LibraryThing for Libraries

If at first glimpse, a web site that allows users to catalog their ain books-cataloging being a undertaking frequently associated with bibliothecs laboring off in a dim and dust-covered basement-might non seem like it would be a popular Web 2.0 tool, you ‘d be sorely mistaken. LibraryThing has taken the web by storm. Libraries and single users likewise have been bombinating with glowing statements such as, “ One of the Seven Wonders of the Web, ” “ At LibraryThing.com, old school met new media, fell in love and birthed a book geek ‘s dream semen true, ” and “ ‘ve seen the hereafter of on-line catalogs, and its name is LibraryThing. ” ( LibraryThing website, Buzz, n.d. ) So what is this new tool that has booklovers and bibliothecs so excited?

“ LibraryThing is an on-line service to assist people catalog their books easy. [ … ] LibraryThing besides connects people with the same books, comes up with suggestions for what to read following, and so forth. ” ( LibraryThing website, About, n.d. ) It started as a service in which persons could make a library-quality catalog for their ain book aggregations. It was subsequently expanded to include the option for organisations to make group histories and for libraries to make histories utilizing LTFL. Libraries can obtain the benefits of integrating LibraryThing tools and content into their OPAC for a annual subscription fee that varies based upon the size of the establishment and the comprehensiveness of the aggregation.

LTFL has a figure of characteristics which can easy impart themselves to any library looking to integrate Web 2.0 tools into its traditional offerings. These maps can be placed into three chief classs: collaborative societal tagging of the on-line public entree catalog ( OPAC ) ; reader reappraisals, evaluations and recommendations ; and reader forums.

Uniting societal package participatory functionalities with an OPAC produces a alleged OPAC 2.0 or “ societal OPAC ” ( Furner, 2007 ) . The enriched information in the OPAC 2.0 ( which is what LibraryThing enables libraries to hold ) “ may assist another reader to cognize if the book they merely identified will fulfill them. Library users may besides detect books of involvement thanks to the maps ‘suggested reading ‘ or ‘people who borrowed this book besides borrowed. ‘ ” ( Chalon, Di Pretoro & A ; Kohn, 2008, p. 3 )

Tags for the OPAC are imported from the LibraryThing web site, where users with single histories have cataloged their ain book aggregations, stand foring more than 40 million rubrics, with more than 51 million different tickets ( LibraryThing website, Zeitgeist, 2008 ) . The tags corresponding to each rubric are displayed in ticket clouds, typically alongside the traditional Library of Congress cataloging, offering users the option of utilizing professional- or layperson-created categorization to finish farther hunts. Tags can be incorporated into any OPAC with a few lines of HTML, and with no back-end integrating. While the ability to delegate tickets is limited to those with an single LibraryThing history on the LibraryThing web site itself, anybody utilizing the library ‘s OPAC is able to lend reappraisals and evaluations of the point in inquiry, straight from the OPAC. Libraries can chair local user reappraisal parts if they so wish. Local user reappraisals and recommendations are complemented by more than 200,000 reappraisals from LibraryThing.com which have been screened for quality and helpfulness.

Schubert ( 2007 ) discusses how LibraryThing is reinventing the reading group by offering booklovers a peep at everyone else ‘s bookshelf. It all began with the inspiration of laminitis Tim Spalding. “ I was seeking to rub my ain scabies, ” Spalding admits ( Schubert, 2007, p. 1 ) . That scabies became LibraryThing, a societal web based non on who you know but on what you ‘ve read.

LibraryThing stands out for both its comprehensiveness and its truth. While most on-line book nines rely on Amazon ‘s unfastened databases for their information, Library Thing besides connects to 70 libraries around the universe, leting the proprietors of some of the rarest books to accurately catalog and portion their aggregations. “ If you are a book lover and you ‘re over 20 old ages old, you ‘ll hold books that are out of print, ” Spalding explains. “ That ‘s why library information is so utile. ” ( Schubert, 2007, p. 2 )

The paper farther elaborates how LibraryThing has evolved with clip. Schubert writes, “ LibraryThing is already get downing to interrupt into the bookshop market. AbeBooks, which took a 40 per centum interest in the company last twelvemonth, began utilizing its recommendations in March ; Spalding ‘s following mark is to acquire into the concern of reding libraries on how to pull off their catalogs. ” ( Schubert, 2007, p. 2 )

Spalding himself expects LibraryThing ‘s existent growing to come from utilizing the community ‘s corporate wisdom to better the manner the universe finds books. Because its system is built on full book aggregations, LibraryThing ‘s database sizes up the reader ‘s full bookshelf and makes informed suggestions – merely for them-based on what it finds at that place. That eliminates books they bought for others and includes the 1s they owned before on-line shopping came along. ( Schubert, 2007, p. 2 )

What is it like to really implement LTFL content into an bing OPAC? In their article “ Subjecting the Catalog to Tagging, ” California State University-Northridge research workers Mendes, Quinonez-Skinner, and Skaggs discuss the execution of LTFL in an academic library and analyze informations use and its possible to impact resource find in the catalog. The writers province that LTFL provides three chief characteristics:

  • ticket clouds
  • links to other editions and interlingual renditions of a work
  • recommendations for similar books

With respect to the jobs of preciseness and callback, the writers note that tickets allow both “ personal information organisation ” ( labeling ) and “ collocation ” ( capable cataloging ) . However, some benefits of societal tagging are making “ the sorts of environments in which we can germinate metadata vocabularies in a natural manner ” ( Guy & A ; Tonkin, 2006, parity. Tag popularity ) , and the promise of bettering resource find of library resources ( Furner, 2007 ) . The writers observe that “ although ticket informations were far more abundant, in usage both tickets and recommendations were likewise popular. ” ( p. 37 ) Actual use is about 8 chinks per ticket per twenty-four hours, while recommendations were clicked 9 times a twenty-four hours ; both informations types had a average value of five per twenty-four hours.

2.2. LibraryThing for Libraries as OPAC 2.0

A figure of writers have completed surveies on the types of characteristics an OPAC 2.0 should include. As antecedently mentioned, Chalon, Di Pretoro, and Kohn ( 2008 ) have defined OPAC 2.0 as an OPAC that incorporates user-generated content, which in the instance of LTFL consists of tickets, reappraisals, and/or recommendations. The writers go on to sketch some of the functionalities that an OPAC 2.0 must let:

  • Commenting: a registered user may post a remark about an point. This user-generated content could be really utile to other users, particularly if the profile of the user who posted the remark is made available. In this manner, other users can look at remarks made by known postings or postings with similar involvements. Alternatively, in an academic library environment, users could seek for remarks made by well-known professors.
  • Rating: when supplying a remark, users may besides add a evaluation for the stuff as a signifier of quantitative rating. The system can besides cipher the norm evaluation for an point.
  • Taging: users may add a ticket to an point. These tags enhance, complement, and enrich the catalog by making a “ folksonomy ” that could potentially be more utile to a wider audience than traditional capable headers or forms are.
  • Book recommendations: the catalog could retain a record of who has borrowed a book ( with that user ‘s permission ) . When analyzing a record, users may see which other books were borrowed by readers of this peculiar book.

2.3. Advantages of Implementing LibraryThing for Libraries as OPAC 2.0

There are a figure of advantages to integrating LibraryThing tickets into the traditional library OPAC, thereby making an OPAC 2.0. They can be placed under the undermentioned headers: natural linguistic communication ; easiness of execution ; labeling consensus system prevents immaterial tickets from being used ; advanced, attractive facet for library users ; and reappraisals and societal characteristics. These will each be discussed in more item below.

2.3.1. Natural Language

The tickets provided by users represent natural linguistic communication for seekers, since tickets are assigned by users themselves instead than by professionals utilizing stiff and sometimes stilted or unnatural linguistic communication. While structured taxonomies have been described as “ hierarchal and sole, ” tagging is “ non-hierarchical and inclusive, ” since it is “ level ” in nature. ( Golder & A ; Huberman, 2005, p. 1 ) Searchs of user-provided tickets are like keyword hunts, since “ users are supplying salient, descriptive footings in order to recover a set of applicable points. ” ( Golder & A ; Huberman, 2005, p. 2 ) In the age of widespread Google keyword searching, this type of seeking may already be comfy and familiar to users.

West ( 2007 ) wrote that observation of an informal tagging system is a manner for bibliothecs to larn about users ‘ information-seeking behaviour. Such systems allow users to make a system utilizing methods that are most productive for them in happening digital content. Most labeling systems have similarities that help them to be simple and utile. “ Tags are links ” is a characteristic that provides entree to other points related to that ticket. “ Tags are created by users ” and “ Tags are societal ” mean that tickets can be arranged and combined in different ways to be able to demo the frequence or popularity of each ticket. Harmonizing to the writer, “ tickets exist to increase findability of digital content and are frequently a addendum to other traditional agencies of accessing information. ” ( West, 2007, p. 2 )

To examine deeper into this thought of tickets as natural linguistic communication, Marchitelli and Piazzini ( 2007 ) completed a survey in which they compared “ traditional OPAC systems, enriched OPAC, societal OPAC and societal cataloging systems, with the purpose of underscoring new theoretical tendencies and to offer a systematic lineation of such tools, harmonizing to the interaction degree granted to users. ” ( p. 1 ) Marchitelli & A ; Piazzini are interested in Library 2.0 as a manner to increase the engagement of the user in the life of the library, in that users can supply content and enrich the catalog to better findability. Emphasis is placed on the added value of user-assigned categorization, heightening the findability, serendipity, and the personalization of the question. The library catalog is a gateway for users, and as such has to be apprehensible and useable for them.

Marchitelli & A ; Piazzini compare the “ traditional ” theoretical account of the OPAC, the “ enhanced ” theoretical account and the “ societal ” one ( called SOPAC ) , eventually depicting several incorporate library systems ( ILS ) that integrate different maps and doodads to let user integrating and draw user-generated content. Some of this package is integrated with LibraryThing.

Furthermore, harmonizing to OCLC studies dating from 2005 and 2007, there is a general consensus that libraries have to travel towards the use penchants and patterns of users alternatively of inquiring the users to travel towards them. Libraries besides must fall in societal webs and luxuriant new schemes to increase communicating with and beef up the relationship with users. However, the writers agree that there is a deficiency of theoretical contemplation in this field: paradigm package is created with no proper theory behind it, but on the other manus there is a really abstract rethinking of the function of the subject of librarianship and information scientific discipline.

Westcott, Chappell and Lebel ( 2008 ) note that LTFL label aid users to happen books in a new manner, and that this sometimes leads to happen better resources or books in other linguistic communications that can non easy be found in a capable hunt utilizing a regular OPAC. Besides, the browse tool is utile for happening related points by using user-generated tickets. Feedback from users, pupils, and librarians indicates that all are by and large pleased about the inclusion of LibraryThing tickets in the library ‘s OPAC.

2.3.2. Reappraisals and societal characteristics

Cohen ( 2006 ) discusses the societal networking facets of LibraryThing, reasoning that LibraryThing content is utile for those who like to have suggestions for the books they like to read and besides for those who wish to run into people with similar reading gustatory sensations, since LibraryThing provides a list of people who have read the same book. Most significantly, LibraryThing has a infinite for reappraisals incorporating text or links to bing on-line reappraisals. There is besides a evaluation system available that allows users to look at the catalogs of other members with similar books. “ LT incorporates societal interactions and is a powerful tool that has readers enthralled, bibliothecs excited, and advocators of societal webs heartening. ” ( p. 33 )

LibraryThing Godhead Tim Spalding has been quoted as stating: “ Nothing kills people ‘s inducement to reexamine more than a desert ; like eating house begets emptiness and success success. ” ( Hadro, 2008 ) As for ticket, frequenters review non to assist the library, but to acquire “ something back – a record of what they read and an chance to show themselves – and show themselves to the people they know. ” ( Hadro, 2008 ) In this manner, LTFL exploits the critical mass of reappraisals written by users to heighten the catalog of a individual library, which could ne’er hold the same sum of reappraisals by its ain frequenters.

2.3.3. Ease of execution

LibraryThing is easy to implement and does non necessitate professional expertness. Westcott, Chappell and Lebel portion their experience of implementing LTFL at the Claremont University Consortium ‘s libraries, the first academic library in the United States to seek LTFL. ( Westcott, Chappell, & A ; Lebel, 2008 )

Wenzler ( 2007, p. 5 ) explains the process for execution:

  • Sign up for a library history: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.librarything.com/forlibraries/
  • Upload a file of the ISBNs in the library catalog to LibraryThing.
  • Configure the doodads on the LibraryThing site.
  • Add the doodads to the record show in the library catalog.

LTFL draws on the informations stored in LibraryThing contributed by users, and is an sheathing for the OPAC ; it consists of a snipping of Javascript shacking in the OPAC ‘s HTML codification that queries LibraryThing informations by ISBN figure as a user selects a bibliographic record. The Javascript so displays LibraryThing ticket for the book, and a list of similar books ( books in the OPAC with the same ticket ) . The LibraryThing tickets are user-generated tickets drawn from LibraryThing retentions, and are displayed in the OPAC either as a tag cloud or a tag list. It is besides a speedy and easy manner to infix a user-generated folksonomy into the OPAC without holding to get down from abrasion and construct a tag base over clip. The writers note the easiness of adding LibraryThing content into their library ‘s bing OPAC. ( Westcott, Chappell, & A ; Lebel, 2008 )

2.3.4. Taging consensus system prevents immaterial tickets from being used

The most outstanding tickets are pulled from LibraryThing single user histories. Merely important tickets are incorporated, and the most often-used tickets are given a larger, bolder fount to bespeak consensus among taggers. Wenzler touched on this subject in his 2007 article discoursing LibraryThing and the library catalog. His chief point was that folksonomies need a critical mass of users to be effectual. Libraries are frequently excluded because of their little communities of frequenters. Simply put, there are non adequate users of a library catalog to do a locally-created folksonomy valuable.

In contrast, users of web sites like Del.ici.ous and LibraryThing have a private inducement in tagging, because they tag their ain aggregation. The site as a whole can do usage of users ‘ cataloging work to bring forth public metadata. In a public catalog, there is no private inducement for library users to add descriptions. So, even though library users as a group could profit from a folksonomy, as individual frequenters they have small motor to catalog books for others. LibraryThing has merely reached a critical mass of users who organize their ain aggregations, so it can offer libraries a solution to develop enhanced catalogs with reappraisals, tickets, and recommendations. Libraries do n’t hold to trouble oneself to construct their ain community of users to supply tickets, and they can ever custom-make the LibraryThing service utilizing CSS, implanting doodads in their OPACs and catalogs.

2.3.5. Folksonomies versus controlled vocabularies

There is contention in the information scientific discipline field sing the usage of controlled vocabularies versus the usage of folksonomies. Rodriguez Yunta ( 2009 ) states that certification professionals have traditionally been advocators of the usage of controlled linguistic communication for its consistence in stand foring systematic documental analysis of content and its ability to unite generic and specific hunts. However, since its debut as one of the chief tools of the societal web, labeling is now besides being applied by research workers and bibliothecs. Now seems an appropriate clip to reflect on this state of affairs: is it a repudiation of the traditional values of a subject? Or is it an version to the demands of new coevalss of users? Has at that place been a paradigm displacement in the perceptual experience of resource discover tools? ( p. 4 ) As a affair of fact, some writers, for illustration, Lancaster ( 2002 ) have acknowledged that uncontrolled vocabularies have some advantages, such as “ leting great specificity in retrieval. ” Lancaster goes on to province that “ it seems clear that natural linguistic communication will be the norm on information retrieval and the usage of conventional controlled vocabularies will diminish. There are many grounds for this, such as the high costs of human rational procedure, the quickly worsening costs of storage systems, the increasing volume of text that is accessible by computing machine ( including electronic mail and full text of magazines and newspapers ) and the gradual decrease of dependance on mediators skilled in on-line searching. ” ( Lancaster, 2002, p. 188 ) . Equally far as the advantages of free indexing spell, Rodriguez states that “ the nomenclature used in societal tagging is really various because it can mention to the description of the contents but besides subjective facets, attributes or elements of the context. ”

Moreiro ( 2004 ) points out the following with respect to folksonomies:

  • There is no investing required to construct documentary linguistic communications.
  • They are germinating linguistic communications.
  • They offer a wealth of vocabulary.
  • Satisfactory consequences are obtained when uniting them with the proper footings of a specific scientific and proficient environment. ( Moreiro, 2004, p. 145 )

Steel ( 2008 ) explores the term and use of folksonomies by assorted Web 2.0 tools. He besides looks at the advantages and disadvantages of folksonomies as compared to command vocabularies. Steel writes, “ Of class, as with most new engineerings, there are critics of labeling. Although some of the tenseness is caused by puting metadata creative activity in the custodies of the multitudes, the professionals have more concerns than merely loss of control of their records. Is labeling here to remain or merely a craze? Will the multitudes be willing to go on to label if it becomes the chief beginning of cataloging? ( Steel, 2008, p. 71 ) “ The critics feel controlled vocabularies should non be dumped for the latest hot new thing ” ( Gordon-Murnane, 2006 ) Steel concludes saying that “ By adding a tagging system to their OPAC, a library creates more entree points, and more ways to acquire users to happen what their library has to offer. Meanwhile, the cataloguers can go on to add the traditional entree points to help in information retrieval where the new methods fail. No system is perfect, but by offering as many tools possible, libraries can go on to be information suppliers in the Web 2.0 environment. ” ( Steel, 2008, p. 77 )

2.3.6. Advanced, attractive facet for library users

The inclusion of LibraryThing tickets could ensue in increased involvement from library users because of its advanced nature. Libraries of all types are utilizing LTFL in unanticipated ways ; that is to state, non merely as auxiliary hunt informations to be added to the OPAC, but besides to back up other types of scheduling.

In her article “ The Librarian Who Loves LibraryThing, ” Sibley discusses general facets of LibraryThing. Sibley a library media specializer at Birmingham Groves High School Media Center, describes her experience who describes her experiences with using this tool with high school pupils in order to assist instructors and pupils participate in a practical group to catalog their personal library aggregation. The facets of LibraryThing that are most practical for pupils are described. In one portion, Sibley clarifies that harmonizing to the site ‘s Footings of Use, kids under the age of 13 are prohibited from utilizing LibraryThing. This limits its usage to high school pupils. Furthermore, she gives an account of how she started her attempts with pupils, learning them how to utilize LibraryThing, making an history, and making a group. After this, they started to read a common book. The instructor posted a subject and had pupils respond to the diary prompts online. Students could subscribe their names at the terminal of the entry. Each entry is day of the month and clip stamped, so the instructor knows the assignment has been delivered on clip. ( Sibley, 2008 )

LibraryThing allows for several appraisal tools. Students can compose book reappraisals, ticket books, respond to journal subjects, and take part in practical book groups. The instructor can see each pupil ‘s library every bit good as all of the diary entries. Students responded that they truly loved the book recommendations and the ability to link with others. The bulk of pupils enjoyed the on-line facet of the category and wanted to come in all of the books they read into their library. ( Sibley, 2008 )

2.3.7. Personalization

LibraryThing allows libraries to command show through the usage of Cascading Style Sheets ( CSS ) , which permit the data format of paperss written in markup linguistic communications. Harmonizing to Wenzler ( 2007 ) , “ Libraries have control over how many tickets and recommendations will look in each record. They have entree to CSS to command the show, and they have the power to turn the doodads on and off. ” ( p. 5 )

Every library can custom-make its ain OPAC layout, to do the execution of LTFL blend good with the old catalog. LibraryThing provides CSS experts for libraries that do non hold staff with equal expertness in implementing it. ( LibraryThing website, n.d. )

2.4. Disadvantages of Implementing LibraryThing for Libraries as OPAC 2.0

While the advantages of integrating LibraryThing content into a library ‘s OPAC, thereby making an OPAC 2.0, seem to do a convincing statement for its execution, it is of import to take into consideration the possible drawbacks of including such content. The jobs discussed below relate to folksonomies in general since LibraryThing labeling employs the same techniques. The chief classs of disadvantages can be classified as follows: hierarchy ; seeking ; synonymity, lexical ambiguity, and plurals ; deepness ( specificity ) of labeling ; user purpose ; linguistic communication ; and writers ‘ names.

2.4.1. Hierarchy

Since labeling represents a level attack to categorization, there is no hierarchal file organisation. This can take to a loss of seeking preciseness, since all hunts will be keyword-based. Golder and Huberman ( 2005 ) write that “ an expeditiously organized file hierarchy neatly and unequivocally bounds a booklet ‘s contents. Unlike a keyword-based hunt, wherein the searcher can non be certain that a question has returned all relevant points, a booklet hierarchy assures the searcher that all the files it contains are in one stable topographic point. ” ( p. 2 )

Mendes, Quinonez-Skinner, and Skaggs ( 2009 ) observe that tickets have ever been seen to be non-hierarchical, non capture relationships between footings, and non command for homonyms. They go on to observe that equivalent word frequently exist, doing the ticket equivocal, imprecise, and personal to the single tagger. Controlled vocabularies, on the other manus, are important, structured information.

Watson ( 2008 ) argues that LibraryThing however manages to avoid this charge because it is possible to automatically import MARC records and its user-generated content is therefore closely linked to structured bibliographic informations from library catalogs. For this ground, it is possible to seek LibraryThing for both users ‘ tickets and Library of Congress capable headers.

O’Neill ( 2007 ) adds that LibraryThing differentiates between pages that capture formal cataloging information and the societal informations generated by LibraryThing users. This means that the page of societal informations associated with Pride and Prejudice shows tags assigned to the work while the cataloging page displays the legion ISBNs captured from different editions every bit good as the more formal categorization provided by professional cataloguers. The strength of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records ( FRBR ) attack is that it seeks to construction find tools ( such as a library catalog ) with the single user ‘s work flow in head to make a more user-friendly environment.

2.4.2. Searching

Westcott, Chappell, and Lebel ( 2008 ) note that one disadvantage of adding the LibraryThing content to their academic library ‘s OPAC is that tickets can non be searched in the OPAC hunt Fieldss, merely in the ticket browser. Another disadvantage is that a user presently can non seek for more than one ticket at a clip, and LTFL merely searches points by ISBN.

However, LibraryThing has made recent paces with its add-on of Tagmash, a functionality whereby a user inputs multiple tickets as a question and the system later generates a list of points that have those tickets associated with a work. For illustration, a reader interested in common people narratives may seek the system utilizing the tags [ common people narratives, folklore, civilization ] and recover rubrics by Joseph Campbell. The page generated by the question displays similar Tagmash questions ( such as folklore, myth ) as farther hunt support and alerts the user to the convergence between the two questions. The page besides displays formal capable classifications. Possibly even more exciting, the URL for the page is readily clear by a user: www.librarything.com/tag/ civilization, folklore, folktales.­

2.4.3. Synonymy, lexical ambiguity and plurals

Steel ( 2009 ) and Noruzi ( 2007 ) both cite plurals, synonymity, and lexical ambiguity as challenges associated with the tagger ‘s vocabulary choice in folksonomy tagging.

2.4.3.1. Synonymy

Synonymy refers to different words with indistinguishable or about indistinguishable significances. This presents a job for labeling since incompatibility among the footings used in labeling can do it hard for the seeker to be certain that all relevant footings have been retrieved. Nevertheless, in 2006, LibraryThing introduced a characteristic that allows multiple editions of work to be combined into a individual “ work ” every bit good as tickets. Watson ( 2008 ) states that “ Tags can be combined every bit good so that ‘nineteenth century, ‘ ‘C 19, ‘ and ‘1800s ‘ are now wholly treated as equivalent word doing it easier to see forms in tag use and happen plants related to a given ticket. ” ( p. 2 )

Steel ( 2009 ) notes that the LibraryThing website recommends uniting tickets that are ever the same in usage and significance. He discourages uniting acronyms and non-acronyms since acronyms are non needfully sole to one construct, but instead can stand for many different footings. He besides adds that while plural and remarkable footings may do jobs in labeling, LibraryThing does non unite these tickets because some words may alter their intended significance in the plural signifier. He gives an illustration of supplication ( the construct of supplication ) and supplications ( a set of supplications ) .

2.4.3.2. Polysemy

Polysemy refers to a word that has two or more similar significances. For illustration, a Jaguar could be a auto, cat or an aircraft. When a hunt of the same is done, all will look, doing the user to pass much more clip seeking to place the “ panther ” that they are looking for. ( Noruzi, 2007 )

2.4.3.3. Plurals

Plurals and parts of address and spelling can besides sabotage a tagging system. For illustration, if the ticket Canis familiaris and Canis familiariss are distinguishable, so a question for one will non recover both, unless the intelligent hunt system has the capableness to execute such replacings built into it.

2.4.4. Depth ( specificity ) of labeling

Specificity means how specific the user ( classifier ) should be in interpreting a construct into ticket ( s ) . Web resources can be tagged to changing degrees of specificity, from really wide topics taken merely from the rubric and abstract to the paragraph degree. The deepness of tags refers to how many tickets there are, comparative to a web resource in the system.

2.4.5. User Purpose

Noruzi ( 2007 ) states that user purpose can be another job ; for one illustration, take spagging, a term created from the footings Spam and ticket. A tagger can label utilizing inappropriate footings with malicious purpose. Further, West ( 2007 ) adds that “ with any societal enterprise, there is a certain sum of noise. While one user may make up one’s mind that labeling a exposure of a eating house “ bestmatzohballsoupever ” is utile to them, this may non be utile to other users. ” ( p. 2 ) On this point, Watson ( 2008 ) notes that users have a vested involvement in doing certain that the catalogs for their aggregations are every bit utile as possible. The writer quotes Spalding as follows: “ Taging plants good when people tag ‘their ‘ material but it fails when they ‘re asked to make person else ‘s material. ” ( p. 4 )

2.4.6. Language

Noruzi ( 2007 ) furthermore notes that an extra folksonomy job arises. It is obvious that different linguistic communications use different words and within any given linguistic communication, different Fieldss use differing vocabularies.

2.4.7. Writer ‘s Name callings

Watson ( 2008 ) indicates that LibraryThing users can besides unite variant signifiers of writer names, therefore making something like name authorization records. He adds that LibraryThing late introduced a wiki-like characteristic called Common Knowledge, in which users can add relevant biographical information about writers and background information about books. All of these characteristics have been to a great extent and enthusiastically used.

However, Watson notes that despite LibraryThings ‘ disambiguation mechanisms, writers with similar names but with different plants still appear on the same page. Furthermore, the fact that users tag, combine, and disambiguate books they own or have read agencies that less popular writers receive less attending.

3. Decision

To sum up, LibraryThing is a societal cataloging tool that allows users to catalog their ain personal library. This literature reappraisal has discussed the research that has been done on the characteristics of LibraryThing, and has focused specifically on its usage as a tool for libraries to see in fall ining the migration to Library 2.0.

To show the importance of LTFL, it is indispensable to do a brief probe into Web 2.0 and Library 2.0, which represent alterations that have brought users to the head and changed them from inactive receivers to active writers and Godheads of content. A folksonomy is classification or categorization performed by users themselves to ease retrieval through the usage of labeling. Library 2.0 utilizations facets of Web 2.0 and focal points on clients to make a better information service environment. One manner libraries can make this end is through the execution of societal web package like LTFL.

This literature reappraisal has identified the three chief characteristics of LTFL that serve the user: collaborative societal tagging of the on-line public entree catalog ( OPAC ) ; reader reappraisals, evaluations and recommendations ; and reader forums. However, the deficiency of research and publications refering LTFL before and after execution has given this literature reexamine a limited range of LibraryThing in footings of long term usage. Therefore, farther research on the experiences of libraries that have implemented LibraryThing is indispensable, since the societal web is rather new itself, holding been released merely in 2005. A figure of writers have completed surveies sing the advantages and disadvantages of LibraryThing based on OPAC 2.0 characteristics.

With respect to the function that LibraryThing can play in libraries, some advantages have been considered: tagging provided by users represents a natural linguistic communication use and can potentially be used to ease information retrieval. Further, LTFL is easy to implement. Folksonomies and labeling consensus system are valuable for guaranting satisfactory consequences. Although folksonomies have drawbacks with respect to their deficiency of control, the ultimate end in including LTFL content is to supplement the library ‘s bing OPAC and make a user-friendly OPAC 2.0 system. The inclusion of LibraryThing ticket is an advanced and attractive facet for users and can besides be applied to ease a library ‘s instruction and learning offerings. Libraries besides can use the personalization facet to accommodate LTFL to their ain demands and demands.

LibraryThing has faced some challenges in using folksonomies: level categorization with no hierarchal organisation ; trouble of seeking tickets that have been added to the OPAC ; synonymity, lexical ambiguity and plurals in the tagging vocabulary ; the degree of deepness that should be applied to tickets ; user purpose in labeling ; writer name format ; and, eventually, covering with current linguistic communications are the chief illustrations of disputing issues. More research in this country is needed to happen ways to better existing challenges and to ease the procedure of using LTFL content in the OPAC.

Writers printing in the field suggest that farther research on the Library 2.0 motion, particularly on societal cataloging and the usage of LTFL in different sorts of libraries should be carried out. Conducting studies of library frequenters about their experiences in utilizing LTFL content has the possible to take more libraries to seek integrating LTFL content into their catalogs. There is still a general deficiency of articles on LibraryThing itself and the utility of reappraisals for libraries, every bit good as how LibraryThing will manage the international integrating of libraries and catalogs, since all the research that has been done has been limited to libraries in the United States.

4. Reference

  1. Casey, M. E. , & A ; Savastinuk, L. C. ( 2006 ) Library 2.0: Service for the next-generation library. Library Journal. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html
  2. Chalon, P. , Di Pretoro, E. , & A ; Kohn, L. ( 2008 ) . OPAC 2.0 Opportunities development and analysis. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.eahil.net/conferences/helsinki_2008/www.terkko.helsinki.fi/bmf/EAHILpapers/Patrice_Chalon_paper.pdf
  3. Cohen, S. ( 2006 ) . The Following Big Library Thing. Public Libraries, 45 ( 2 ) , 33-35. Retrieved June 10, 2009, from Library, Information Science & A ; Technology Abstracts with Full Text database.
  4. Contreras, L. A. ( 2007 ) . Sitios Web 2.0 Desde La Perspectiva del Usuario: Librarything. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //eprints.rclis.org/9864/1/articulo.pdf
  5. DeZelar-Tiedman, C. ( 2008 ) . Making the LibraryThing in an Academic Library Catalog. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //dc2008.de/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/11_dezelar_poster.pdf
  6. Fichter, D. ( 2006 ) . Web 2.0, Library 2.0 and Extremist Trust: A First Take. Blog on the Side. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //library2.usask.ca/~fichter/blog_on_the_side/2006/04/web-2.html
  7. Furner, J. ( 2007 ) . Toward a model for system rating. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla73/papers/157-Furner-en.pdf
  8. Golder, S. & A ; Huberman, B.A. ( 2005 ) . The construction of collaborative labeling systems. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0508082
  9. Guy, M. & A ; Tonkin, E. ( 2006 ) . Folksonomies: clean uping up tickets? D-Lib Magazine, 12 ( 1 ) , Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: www.dlib.org/dlib/january06/guy/01guy.html
  10. Hadro, J. ( 2008 ) . LibraryThing Adds Reviews to OPACs. Library Journal. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6611588.html
  11. Holmberg, K. , Huvila, I. , Kronqvist-Berg, M. & A ; Wid & A ; eacute ; n-Wulff, G. ( 2009, in imperativeness ) . What is Library 2.0? Journal of Documentation
  12. Lancaster, F.W. ( 2002 ) . El control del vocabulario en la recuperaci & A ; oacute ; n de informaci & A ; oacute ; n. Valencia: Universitat.
  13. LibraryThing. ( 2009 ) . LibraryThing BETA Website Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.librarything.com/
  14. Marchitelli, A. , & A ; Piazzini, T. ( 2008 ) . OPAC, SOPAC E Social networking: cataloghi di biblioteca 2.0? Biblioteche Oggi, 26 ( 2 ) , 82-92. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //eprints.rclis.org/12449/1/opac2_080108.pdf
  15. Mendes, L. H. , Quinonez-Skinner, J. , Skaggs, D. ( 2009 ) . Subjecting the catalog to labeling. Library Hi Tech, 27 ( 1 ) , 30-41. Department of the Interior: 10.1108/07378830910942892
  16. Moreiro, J. A. ( 2004 ) . El contenido de los documentos textuales: su an & A ; aacute ; lisis y representaci & A ; oacute ; n mediante EL lenguaje natural. Gij & A ; oacute ; Ns: Trea.
  17. Noruzi, A. ( 2007 ) Folksonomies: Why do we necessitate controlled vocabulary? Webology 4 ( 2 ) , column. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.webology.ir/2007/v4n2/editorial12.html
  18. O’Neill, J. ( 2007 ) .LibraryThing: cataloging for the ( societal ) masses.Information Today,24 ( 8 ) .p.23.RetrievedJune 10, 2009, fromGeneral Reference Center GoldviaGale: hypertext transfer protocol: //find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do? prodId=GRGM
  19. Personal computer Magazine definition of taxonomy. ( n.d. ) . PC Magazine Encyclopedia. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542, t=taxonomy & A ; i=52588,00.asp
  20. ProQuest. ( n.d. ) . SA Glossary. CSA Discovery Guides. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.csa.com/discoveryguides/scholarship/gloss.php
  21. Rodr & A ; iacute ; guez Yunta, Luis. ( 2009 ) . Etiquetado libre frente a lenguajes documentales. Aportaciones en EL & A ; aacute ; mbito de Biblioteconom & A ; iacute ; a Y Documentaci & A ; oacute ; n. IX Congress ISKO, Valencia ( Spain ) , March 11-13, 2009. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/12295/1/Comunicacion_Luis_RYunta_ISKO2009.pdf
  22. Schubert, S. ( 2007 ) Beating Oprah at the book nine game: LibraryThing is reinventing the reading group by offering booklovers a peep at everyone else ‘s bookshelves. Business 2.0. 8 ( 3 ) . Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/04/01/toc.html
  23. Secker, J. , & A ; Price, G. ( 2007 ) . Libraries as a societal infinite: heightening the experience of distance scholars utilizing societal package. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //eprints.lse.ac.uk/4484/
  24. Sibley, R. ( 2008 ) . The bibliothec who loves LibraryThing. School Library Media Activities Monthly Blog. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //blog.schoollibrarymedia.com/index.php/2008/04/13/guest-blogger-roberta-sibley-the-librarian-who-loves-librarything/
  25. Steel, T. ( 2009 ) The new concerted cataloging. Library Hi Tech, 27 ( 1 ) , p.68-77. Department of the Interior: 10.1108/07378830910942928
  26. University of Toronto. ( 2004 ) . The Taxonomy Guide. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //plc.fis.utoronto.ca/tgdemo/Glossary.asp
  27. Watson, A. ( 2008 ) Distributed authorization control in the age of web 2.0: The instance of LibraryThing. Questioning Authority Conference, March 29, 2008. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.questioningauthority.org/conference/files/watson_QA_conference_paper.pdf
  28. Wenzler, J. ( 2007 ) . LibraryThing and the library catalog: Adding corporate intelligence to the opac. A Workshop on Next Generation Libraries CARL NITIG ; September 7, 2007. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //online.sfsu.edu/~jwenzler/research/LTFL.pdf
  29. West, J. ( 2007 ) . Capable Headings 2.0: Folksonomies and Tags. Library Media Connection, 25 ( 7 ) , 58-59
  30. Westcott, J. , Chappell, A. , & A ; Lebel, C. ( 2008 ) . LibraryThing for libraries at Claremont. Library Hi Tech. 27 ( 1 ) , 78-81. Department of the Interior: 10.1108/07378830910942937

Post Author: admin

x

Hi!
I'm Percy!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out