Presentation from IFLA Satellite Post-Conference: Beyond libraries - subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn

1. Folksonomies as Subject Access
A Survey of Tagging in Library Online Catalogs
and Discovery Layers
IFLA Satellite Post-Conference: Beyond libraries – subject
metadata in the digital environment and semantic web
17-18 August 2012, Tallinn
Yan Yi Lee, Wagner College, NY, USA
Sharon Q. Yang, Rider University, NJ, USA

2. Overview
1. Introduction
– What is folksonomy?
– Is folksonomy useful as subject access?
2. Survey-purpose and methodology
3. Findings and discussion
4. Conclusion

3. What is Folksonomy?
• Taxonomy + folk = folksonomy
• Classification of resources by users
• Describe resources in users’ own language
• Tags and tag clouds are folksonomy

4. Tags & Tag Cloud
• Keywords created by users called “tags”
• Each tag is a link
• Tags accumulate into a cloud
• Tag Cloud
- A visual subject classification scheme
- Font and size show which tags are more
popular

5. Example of Tag Cloud
Tag Cloud in test OPAC of Wagner College Library

6. Folksonomy as Subject Access?
Past research compared LCSH with folksonomy in
LibraryThing:
– Up to 60% of the folksonomy duplicate LCSH.
– A small percentage comprises useless tags
– Tags use different terms than LCSH
– Tags cover more aspect of a book’s subject
– 20% to 30% can provide additional access to library
collections

7. So the Questions are…
• How do library systems handle folksonomy?
• How do libraries handle folksonomy when given
the capability?
• How do users handle folksonomy when given the
opportunity?

8. Methodology
Systems (Marshall Breeding’s Technology Guide)
– Discovery layers (15)
– OAPC of Integrated Library System (37)
Libraries
– Koha OPACs (307)
Users
– Koha OPACS (307)

9. Discovery Tools & Tagging
The survey checked all the major discovery tools
– 47% Discovery Tools allow users to add tags
• 40% can display Tag list
• 33% can display a tag cloud
• 27% can display both
– 47% execute a new search
– 20% narrow a search

10. 15 Discovery Tools & Tagging
Systems Allow Users to add Tag Cloud Tag list Tag to start a new Tag to refine
tags search a search
1 AquaBrowser Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2 AXIELL ARENA No No No No No
3 Blacklight No No No No No
4 Biblio Commons Yes No Yes Yes Yes
5 EBSCO Discover Service No No No No No
6 Encore Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
7 Endeca No No No No No
8 Enterprise No No No No No
9 Primo Yes Yes Yes Yes No
10 Scriblio No No No No No
11 Summon No No No No No
12 SOPAC Yes Yes No Yes No
13 Visualizer No No No No No
14 VuFind Yes No Yes Yes No
15 WorldCat Local Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Total 47% 33% 40% 47% 20%

11. Integrated Library Systems and Tagging
• The survey includes 37 Major Integrated Library
Systems (ILSs)
- Tagging function in ILS
- Tag could or tag list in OPAC, or both
- Tag to start a new search
- Tag to refine a search result

12. 37 ILSs & Tagging
Library Automation System Allow Users to add tags Tag Cloud Tag List Tag to start a new Tag to refine a
search search
Agent VERSO No No No No No
Aleph 500 No No No No No
Alexandria No No No No No
Amlib No No No No No
Apollo No No No No No
Athena No No No No No
Atriuum No No No No No
Carl.X No No No No No
Circulation Plus No No No No No
Concourse No No No No No
DB/TextWorks No No No No No
Destiny No No No No No
Dynix No No No No No
EOS Web No No No No No
Evergreen No No No No No
Evolve No No No No No
Genesis G3 Yes No No No No
GLAS No No No No No

13. 37 ILSs & Tagging - continued
Horizon No No No No No
InfoCentre No No No No No
Innopac No No No No No
Koha Yes Yes No Yes No
Liberty3 No No No No No
Library Solution No No No No No
LibraryWorld No No No No No
Mandarin M3 No No No No No
Millennium No No No No No
OPALS No No No No No
Polaris No No No No No
Portfolio No No No No No
ResourceMate No No No No No
Spydus No No No No No
Unicorn (Symphony) No No No No No
Virtua No No No No No
Voyager No No No No No
Vubis Smart No No No No No
Winnebago Spectrum No No No No No
Total 5.41% 2.70% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00%

14. Integrated Library Systems and Tagging -
continued
• Only 2 out of 37 ILSs allow Tagging – Koha &
Genesis G3 (5% ILSs)
• Koha is the only ILS has tag cloud in it’s online
catalog (OPAC)
• Koha uses tags to enhance subject access
• None ILS uses tags to refine search results

15. Libraries & Tagging
• Take Koha as an example ILS for the survey
• Koha - Open Source Integrated Library System,
created in 1999
• A survey of tagging activities in 307 Koha
implementers
- 218 public libraries
- 62 academic libraries
- 27 school libraries

16. Libraries & Tagging - continued
• All tags in Koha Tag Cloud are created by users
• Users can create tags in Koha for private or public
• Tags were proved by librarians before adding to
Cloud for public
• External dictionary in Koha – a whitelist to verify
terms added by users

17. Tagging in 307 Koha OPACs
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
Percentage (Tags Enabled)
40.00%
Percentage (Tags Disabled)
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Public Academic School

18. Tagging in 307 Koha OPACs - continued
Total Total
Percentage Percentage
Total Libraries Libraries
Library Type (Tags (Tags
Libraries (Tags (Tags
Enabled) Disabled)
Enabled) Disabled)
Public
218 107 49.08% 111 50.92%
Academic
62 36 58.06% 26 41.94%
School
27 6 22.22% 21 77.78%
All Libraries 307 149 48.53% 158 51.47%

19. Tagging in 307 Koha OPACs - continued
• 149 out of 307 libraries encourage users to add
tags to OPACs (51%)
– Academic libraries: nearly 58% enabled
– Public libraries: 49% enabled
– School libraries: 22% enabled

20. Users & Tagging
• How much did users take advantage of Tagging?
• Tag clouds grouped into 4 categories
- Large cloud (over 50 tags)
- Small cloud (Less than 50 tags)
- Empty cloud (Tagging turned on, but no tags)
- No cloud (Tagging turned off)

21. Users & Tagging - continued
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00% Percentage (> 50 tags)
Percentage (< 50 tags)
40.00%
Percentage (no tags)
30.00% Percentage (tags disabled)
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Public Academic School

22. Users & Tagging - continued
Tag Cloud in Public Libraries
• 27% public libraries have
large tag clouds for
Large Tag Cloud (over
subject access
27% 50 tags)
Small Tag Cloud (less
• More than half public
51%
than 50 tags)
Empty Tag Cloud (no
libraries do not encourage
17%
tags)
users add their own
Tag Cloud not turned
5%
on subject terms
• 22% users are not
interested in adding tags
to catalogs

23. Users & Tagging - continued
Tag Cloud in Academic Libraries • Only 3% academic
3% libraries have large tag
Large Tag Cloud (over clouds for subject access
• 42% academic libraries do
50 tags)
42% Small Tag Cloud (less
than 50 tags)
44%
Empty Tag Cloud (no
not encourage users add
tags)
Tag Cloud not turned
their own subject terms
11%
on
• Users in more than half
academic libraries are not
interested in adding tags
to catalogs

24. Users & Tagging - continued
• Tag Cloud in Wagner College Koha OPAC
(Sandbox)
• Tags are simple terms created by students in their
own language
• Some tags are closer to subject headings
• Searching by tags only retrieve limited titles
For example: Search by tag “microbiology” get
only 3 titles, by subject “microbiology” can get 262
titles

25. Conclusion - Think outside the box
• More systems need to include tagging capability
in design (47% in discovery layers vs. 5% in ILS)
• All libraries should give users the opportunity to
tag. (49% enabled)
• Find innovative ways to encourage users to
participate in tagging

26. Food for Thought
More research is needed for
1. Why public library users are more active in
tagging?
2. Better subject access to combine user
contributed tagging and keyword extraction into
one tag cloud?
3. How to link/map LCSH to user contributed tags?

27. Questions and Answers

28. Credits
Breeding, M. (2012). Guides: Resources and content on relevant topics. In Library technology
guides: Key resources in the field of library automation [This site has comprehensive
listings of Integrated Library Systems and discovery tools]. Retrieved March 6, 2012,
from http://www.librarytechnology.org/web/Breeding/guides/
Kwan, Y., & Lois Mai, C. (2009). Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress subject headings:
an exploratory study. Journal Of Documentation, 65(6), 872-900.
Liu, C., Park, J., & 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. doi:10.1177/0165551510386173
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.
Wetterstrom, M. (2008). The Complementarity of Tags and LCSH — A Tagging Experiment
And Investigation into Added Value in a New Zealand Library Context. New Zealand
Library & Information Management Journal, 50(4), 296-310.
Yi, K., & Chan, L. (2009). Linking folksonomy to Library of Congress subject headings: an
exploratory study. Journal Of Documentation, 65(6), 872-900.