Implications of Social Tagging for Digital Libraries: Benefiting from User Collaboration in the Creation of Digital Knowledge

This study aims to answer whether social tagging through user collaboration could be utilized for the creation of digital knowledge of the web, and whether we could verify the quality and efficacy of social tagging to obtain benefits from it. In particular, this paper examines the inter-indexer consistency of social tagging in comparison to professional indexing. It employs two different similarity measures, both of which are based on the Vector Space Model to deal with numerous indexers. It contributes to the utilization of social tagging in the organization of the web, and encourages to adopt social knowledge in developing suitable vocabularies for resources newly generated in the digital library environment. Furthermore, the comparative analysis with two different measures produced more credible results by illustrating a similar pattern of indexing tendency in both measures.

keywords: indexing, consistency, social tagging, folksonomies, controlled vocabularies, tags, indexing, consistency, social tagging, folksonomies, controlled vocabularies, tags, 색인, 일관성, 소셜 태깅, 포크소노미, 통제 어휘, 태그

참고문헌

Cooper, W. S.. (1969). Is interindexer consistency a hobgoblin?. American Documentation, 20(3), 268-278.

Fidel, R.. (1991). Searchers’ selection of search keys: II. Controlled vocabulary or free-text searching. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(7), 501-514.

Gold, J.. (1996). Introducing a new service from BUBL [Libraries of Networked Knowledge]. The Serials Librarian, 30(2), 21-26.

Golder, S.. (2006). The structure of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 198-208.

Golub, Koraljka. (2006). Using controlled vocabularies in automated subject classification of textual web pages, in the context of browsing. IEEETCDL Bulletin, 2(2), 1-11.

Joint Information Systems Committee. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/.

Knapp, Sara D.. (1998). A natural language thesaurus for the Humanities: The need for a database search aid. The Library Quarterly, 68(4), 406-430.

Leonard, L. E.. (1977). Inter-indexer consistency studies, 1954-1975: a review of the literature and summary of results. University of Illinois, Graduate School of Library Science Cham- paign.

Lin, X.. (2006). Exploring characteristics of social classification (-). 17th ASIS&T SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop.

10.

Macgregor, G.. (2006). Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organization and resource discovery tool. Library Review, 55(5), 291-300.

11.

Mai, J.-E.. (2004). Classification of the Web: challenges and inquiries. Knowledge Organization, 31(2), 92-97.

12.

Merholz, P.. (2004). Metadata for the Masses, adaptive path. http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000361.php.

13.

Nicholson, D.. (2001). HILT: High Level Thesaurus Project: Final Report. .

14.

Nowick, E. A.. (2003). Comparisons between Internet users' free-text queries and controlled vocabularies: a case study in water quality. Technical Services Quarterly, 21(2), 15-32.

15.

Peterson, E.. (2006). Beneath the Metadata: Some philosophical problems with folksonomy. D-Lib Magazine, 12(11), -.

16.

Quintarelli, E.. (2005). Folksonomies: power to the people (-). Proceedings of the 1st International Society for Knowledge Organization.

17.

Rolling, L.. (1981). Indexing consistency, quality and efficiency. Information Processing & Management, 17, 69-76.

18.

Salton, G.. (1975). A vector space model for automatic indexing. Communications of the ACM, 18(11), 613-620.

19.

Sen, S.. (2006). Tagging, communites, vocabulary, evolution (-). Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work.

20.

Smith, G.. (2004). Folksonomy: social classification. Atomiq/information Architecture [blog]. http://atomiq.org/archives/2004/08/folksonomy_social_classification.html.

21.

Spiteri, L.. (2005). Controlled Vocabularies and Folksonomies (-). Presentation at Canadian Metadata Forum.

22.

Tennis, Joseph T.. (2006). Social Tagging and the Next Steps for Indexing (-). Proceedings of the 17th Workshop of the American Society for Information Science and Technology Special Interest Group in Classification Re-search.

23.

Trant, J.. (2009). Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework. Journal of Digital Information, 10(1), -.

24.

University of Kent. (2009). Library Services Subject Guides. http://www.kent.ac.uk/library/subjects/healthinfo/subjgate.html.

25.

Weber, J.. (2006). Folksonomy and controlled vocabulary in Library Thing. Unpublished Final Project:University of Pittsburgh.

26.

Wikipedia. (2009). The free encyclopedia. http://www.wikipedia.org.

27.

Wolfram, D.. (2007). A Method for Comparing Large Scale Inter-indexer Consistency Using IR Modeling (-). Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science.

28.

Zunde, P.. (1969). Indexing consistency and quality. American Documentation, 20(3), 259-267.

바로가기메뉴

논문 상세

Vol.27 No.2

디지털 도서관을 위한 소셜 태깅의 의미: 이용자 협력을 활용한 디지털 지식 생성

Implications of Social Tagging for Digital Libraries: Benefiting from User Collaboration in the Creation of Digital Knowledge

Abstract

참고문헌

정보관리학회지