برچسب های اجتماعی لایبرری ثینگ در مقابل سرعنوان های موضوعی کتابخانه کنگره: مرور نوشتارها

پژوهشنامه کتابداری و اطلاع رسانی

مقاله 10، دوره 8، شماره 1، شهریور 1397، صفحه 313-335   

نوع مقاله: مقالات مروری

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/riis.v0i0.57823

نویسندگان

مهدی خادمیان^* ؛ مرتضی کوکبی

دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز

چکیده

مقدمه: مقایسه ماهیت، مزایا و معایب رده بندی های مردمی با واژگان مهار شده و مرور نوشتارهای مربوط به برچسب های اجتماعی لایبرری ثینگ با سرعنوان‌های موضوعی کتابخانه کنگره هدف این مقاله است.

روش‌شناسی: روش پژوهش کتابخانه ای و مطالعه تطبیقی است.

یافته ها: رده بندی های مردمی مزایایی مانند به‌روز بودن، مبتنی بر نظر کاربر بودن، به صرفه بودن از نظر مالی و عدم نیاز به آموزش دارند. اما معایبی مانند عدم یکدستی، عدم فراهم کردن بافت، و فقدان دقت و بازیافت نیز دارند که موجب شده است به جای جایگزینی، مکمل بودن دو نظام رده بندی های مردمی و واژگان مهار شده مطرح شود.

نتیجه‌گیری: مرور نوشتارهای مربوط به برچسب های لایبرری ثینگ و سرعنوان ‌های موضوعی کتابخانه کنگره نشان می دهد پژوهش‌ها با روش‌های پژوهش و حجم نمونه‌گیری‌های مختلف انجام شده‌اند. همچنین، زمینه‌های موضوعی متنوع، پراکنده‌ و خاص بررسی شده است. مرور نوشتارها آشکار می‌کند بین برچسب‌های اجتماعی و سرعنوان‌های موضوعی کتابخانه کنگره تا حدودی مطابقت (نزدیک به 50 درصد) وجود داردولی این میزان مطابقت در حدی نیست که بتوان برچسب‌های اجتماعی را با سرعنوان‌های موضوعی جایگزین کرد، به همین دلیل نتیجه‌گیری شده است که این دو نظام سازماندهی اطلاعات، می‌توانند مکمل هم باشند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

برچسب های اجتماعی؛ سرعنوان های موضوعی کتابخانه کنگره؛ لایبرری ثینگ؛ رده‌بندی‌های مردمی؛ فوکسونومی ها؛ واژگان مهار شده مهار شده

مراجع

Adler. M. (2009).Transcending Library Catalogs: A Comparative Study of Controlled Terms in Library of Congress Subject Headings and User-Generated Tags in Library Thing for Transgender Books. Journal of Web Librarianship, 3(4), 309-331.

Alemu, G., Stevens, B. and Ross, P. (2012). Towards a conceptual framework for user-driven semantic metadata interoperability in digital libraries: A social constructivist approach. New Library World, 113(1/2), 38-54.

Bartley, P. (2009). Book Tagging on Library Thing: How, Why, and What are in the Tags? Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 46(1), 1-22.

Blyberg, J. (2007) “AADL.org Goes Social” post to blyberg.net. Retrieved 14 October 2015 from:

http://www.blyberg.net/2007/01/21/aadlorg-goes-social/

Broughton, V. (2004).Essential Classification. Facet Publishing, London.

Chamis, A. Y. (1991). Vocabulary Control and Search Strategies in Online Searching. Greenwood Press, Connecticut.

Chen, Y. (2008). Analysis of Social Tagging and Book Cataloging: A Case Study. HKLA 50th Anniversary

Conference Hong Kong, 5 November 2008. Retrieved 05 November 2015 from:http://www.hkla.org/events/2008/conf/yi.ppt

Davis, I. (2005). Why Tagging is Expensive. Silkworm Blog.Retrieved 20 February 2015 from: http://silkworm.talis.com/blog/archives/2005/09/why_tagging_is.html

Frazier, A. (2012). Playing Tag: an exploration of folksonomy in comparison to LCSH.Retrieved 07 November 2015 from: http://www.sidelongcitation.com/uploads/8/2/5/6/8256205/frazier.pdf‎

Furner, J. (2007). User tagging of library resources: Towards framework for system evaluation. Paper presented at World Library and Information Congress: 73rd IFLA General Conference and Council, Durban, South Africa, August 19-23, 2007. Retrieved 11 October 2015 from:http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.109.5202&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Furner, J. (2009). Folksonomies.In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition. Taylor and Francis: New York, Retrieved 11 October 2015 from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120043238

Furner, J. (2010). Empowering Users Through Social Tagging. Retrieved 25 December 2014 from:http://www.tammiyk.com/uploads/9/2/1/3/9213112/subject_cataloging.pdf

Garshol, L, M. (2004).Metadata?Thesauri?Taxonomies? Topic Maps! Making sense of it all.Journal of Information Science, 30(4), 378-391.

Golder, S. A., and Huberman, B. A. (2006). Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 198-208.

Gruber, T. (2007). Ontology of folksonomy: a mashup of apples and oranges. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 3(2), 1-11.

Guy, M. and Tonkin, E. (2006). Folksonomies: Tidying up tags? D-Lib Mag., 12(1). Retrieved 12 October 2015 from:http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january 06/guy/01guy.html

Hansson, O. (2014). The state of research on folksonomies in the field of Library and Information Science: A Systematic Literature Review.Retrieved 10 October 2015 from:http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=4451166&fileOId=4451168

Heymann, P. and Garcia-Molina, H. (2009). Contrasting Controlled Vocabulary and Tagging: Do Experts Choose the Right Names to Label the Wrong Things? Retrieved 11 November 2014 from: http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/955/1/cvuv-lbrp.pdf‎

Kipp, M. E. I. (2011a). Controlled vocabularies and tags: An analysis of research methods. In Smiraglia, Richard P., ed. Proceedings from North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization, Vol. 3., 23-32.

Kipp, M. E. I. (2011b). Tagging of Biomedical Articles on CiteULike: A Comparison of User, Author and Professional Indexing.Knowledge Organization, 38(3), 245-261.

Kipp, M. E. I. (2011c). Controlled vocabularies and tags: An analysis of research methods. In Smiraglia, Richard P., ed. Proceedings from North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization, Vol. 3., 23-32.

Kipp, M. E. I. and Beak, J. (2012).Examining Studies Comparing Tags and Controlled Vocabularies.Canadian Association for Information Science, Waterloo, Ontario, May 31-June 2, 2012. Retrieved 24 October 2015 from:http://www.cais-acsi.ca/ojs/index.php/cais/article/viewFile/721/477

Lancaster, F. W. (2003). Indexing and Abstracting in Theory and Practice (3rd ed.). Thomson-Shore Inc., Michigan, USA.

Lasić-Lazić, J.,Špiranec, S. and Ivanjko, T. (2014). Tag-Resource-User: A Review of Approaches in Studying Folksonomies, Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML) 3:683 –692.

Lawson, K. G. (2009). Mining Social Tagging Data for Enhanced Subject Access for Readers and Researchers.Retrieved 17 October 2015 from:http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/libcat_pubs

Lu, C., Park, J. and Hu, X. (2010). User tags versus expert-assigned subject terms: A comparison of LibraryThing

tags and Library of Congress Subject Headings. Journal of Information Science 36(6): 763-779.

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

Mai, J. (2011). Folksonomies and the New Order: Authority in the Digital Disorder. Knowledge Organization, 38(2), 114-122.

Mathes, A. (2004). Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication through Shared Metadata.Retrieved 6 August 2015 from:http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediatedcommunication/folksonomies.html

Merholz, P. (2005). Clay Shirky’s Viewpoints are Overrated. Peterme.com: links, thoughts, and essays from Peter Merholz. Retrieved 20 February 2015 from: http://www.peterme.com/archives/000558.html

Moulaison, H. (2008). Social Tagging in the Web 2.0 Environment: Author vs. User Tagging. Journal of Library Metadata, 8(2), 101-111.

Munk, T. B. and Mork, K. (2007).Folksonomy, the power law & the significance of the least effort.Knowledge Organization, 34(1), 16-33.

Nicholson, D., Neill, S., Currier, S., Will, L. Gilchrist, A., Russell, R. and Day, M. (2001). HILT: High Level Thesaurus Project – Final Report to RSLP & JISC, Centre for Digital Library Research, Glasgow, UK. Retrieved 20 February 2015 from:http://hilt.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/Reports/Documents/HILTfinalreport.doc.

Noruzi, A. (2007). Editorial.Webology 2.Retrieved 02 December 2015 from:http://www.webology.ir/2007/ v4n2/editorial12.html

Peters, I. (2009). Folksonomies: indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Peterson, E. (2006). Beneath the metadata: Some philosophical problems with folksonomy. D-Lib Magazine, 12(11).Retrieved 4 August 2015 from:http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november06/peterson/11peterson.html

Peterson, E. (2008). Parallel systems: The coexistence of subject cataloging and folksonomy. Library Philosophy & Practice,10(1), 1–5.

Porter, J. (2011). Folksonomies in the library: their impact on user experience, and their implications for the work of librarians, The Australian Library Journal, 60(3), 248-255.

Quintarelli, E. (2005). Folksonomies: power to the people. Proceedings of the 1st International Society for Knowledge Organization (Italy) (ISKOI), UniMIB Meeting, June 24, Milan, Italy, ISKOI, Italy Retrieved 20 February 2015 from:http://www.iskoi.org/doc/folksonomies.html

Rahman, A.I.M. J. (2012). Social tagging versus Expert created subject headings. Master Thesis, Oslo

andAkershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo, Norway.

Ranganathan, S. R. (1967). Prolegomena to Library Classification (3rd ed.). Asia Publishing House, London.

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.

Shirky, C. (2005a). Ontology is Overrated: Categories, Links, and Tags. Clay Shirky's writings about the internet.Retrieved 05 December 2015 from:http://shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html

Shirky, C. (2005b). Folksonomies are a forced move: a response to Liz. Many2Many: A group Weblog of social software. Retrieved 22 February 2015 from:http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2005/01/22/folksonomies_are_a_forced_move_a_response_to_liz.php

Shirky, C. (2005c). Semi-Structured Meta-data has a Posse: A response to Gene Smith. You’re It! A Blog on Tagging.Retrieved 20 February 2015 from:http://tagsonomy.com/index.php/semi-structured-meta-data-has-a-posse-aresponse-to-gene-smith/

Smith, T. (2007).Cataloging and you: Measuring the efficacy of a folksonomy for subject analysis. In Lussky, Joan, Eds. Proceedings of the 18th Workshop of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Special Interest Group in Classification Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Retrieved 02 December 2015 from:http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/2061

Spiteri, L. F. (2007). The structure and form of folksonomy tags: The road to the public library catalog. Information Technology & Libraries,26(3), 13–25.

Sterling, B. (2005). Order Out of Chaos. Wired Magazine, 13(4).Retrieved 20 February 2015 from: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.04/view.html?pg=4

Thomas, M., Caudle, D. M., and Schmitz, C. M. (2009).To tag or not to tag? Library Hi Tech, 27(3), 411-434.

Trant, J. (2008). Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework, Journal of Digital Information 10(1).Retrieved 22 January 2015 from:http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/2595/

Vaidya, P. and Harinarayana, N. S. (2016).The Comparativeand Analytical Study of LibraryThing Tags with

Library ofCongress Subject Headings.Knowledge Organization,43(1), 35-43.

Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA.

Weber, J. (2006). Folksonomy and controlled vocabulary in LibraryThing.Unpublished Final Project, University of Pittsburgh.Retrieved 10 October 2015 from: http://jonathanweber.info/samples/2452-Folksonomy.pdf‎

Weinberger, D. (2005). Tagging and why it matters. Retrieved 05 August 2015 from:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/2005-07.

Wu, D., He, D., Qiu, J., Lin, R. and Liu, Y. (2013).Comparing social tags with subject headings on annotating books: A study comparing the information science domain in English and Chinese.Journal of Information Science, 39, 169-187.