Folksonomies have the potential to add much value to public library
catalogues by enabling clients to: store, maintain, and organize
items of interest in the catalogue using their own tags. The purpose
of this paper is to examine how the tags that constitute folksonomies
are structured. Tags were acquired over a thirty-day period from
the daily tag logs of three folksonomy sites, Del.icio.us, Furl,
and Technorati. The tags were evaluated against section 6 (choice
and form of terms) of the National Information Standards Organization
(NISO) guidelines for the construction of controlled vocabularies.
This evaluation revealed that the folksonomy tags correspond closely
to the NISO guidelines that pertain to the types of concepts expressed
by the tags, the predominance of single tags, the predominance of
nouns, and the use of recognized spelling. Potential problem areas
in the structure of the tags pertain to the inconsistent use of the
singular and plural form of count nouns, and the incidence of ambiguous
tags in the form of homographs and unqualified abbreviations or acronyms.
Should library catalogues decide to incorporate folksonomies, they
could provide clear guidelines to address these noted weaknesses,
as well as links to external dictionaries and references sources
such as Wikipedia to help clients disambiguate homographs and to
determine if the full or abbreviated forms of tags would be preferable.
%0 Journal Article
%1 Spiteri2007
%A Spiteri, Louise
%D 2007
%J Webology
%K folksonomy library library2.0 tagging
%N 2
%T Structure and form of folksonomy tags: The road to the public library
catalogue.
%U http://www.webology.ir/2007/v4n2/a41.html
%V 4
%X Folksonomies have the potential to add much value to public library
catalogues by enabling clients to: store, maintain, and organize
items of interest in the catalogue using their own tags. The purpose
of this paper is to examine how the tags that constitute folksonomies
are structured. Tags were acquired over a thirty-day period from
the daily tag logs of three folksonomy sites, Del.icio.us, Furl,
and Technorati. The tags were evaluated against section 6 (choice
and form of terms) of the National Information Standards Organization
(NISO) guidelines for the construction of controlled vocabularies.
This evaluation revealed that the folksonomy tags correspond closely
to the NISO guidelines that pertain to the types of concepts expressed
by the tags, the predominance of single tags, the predominance of
nouns, and the use of recognized spelling. Potential problem areas
in the structure of the tags pertain to the inconsistent use of the
singular and plural form of count nouns, and the incidence of ambiguous
tags in the form of homographs and unqualified abbreviations or acronyms.
Should library catalogues decide to incorporate folksonomies, they
could provide clear guidelines to address these noted weaknesses,
as well as links to external dictionaries and references sources
such as Wikipedia to help clients disambiguate homographs and to
determine if the full or abbreviated forms of tags would be preferable.
@article{Spiteri2007,
abstract = {Folksonomies have the potential to add much value to public library
catalogues by enabling clients to: store, maintain, and organize
items of interest in the catalogue using their own tags. The purpose
of this paper is to examine how the tags that constitute folksonomies
are structured. Tags were acquired over a thirty-day period from
the daily tag logs of three folksonomy sites, Del.icio.us, Furl,
and Technorati. The tags were evaluated against section 6 (choice
and form of terms) of the National Information Standards Organization
(NISO) guidelines for the construction of controlled vocabularies.
This evaluation revealed that the folksonomy tags correspond closely
to the NISO guidelines that pertain to the types of concepts expressed
by the tags, the predominance of single tags, the predominance of
nouns, and the use of recognized spelling. Potential problem areas
in the structure of the tags pertain to the inconsistent use of the
singular and plural form of count nouns, and the incidence of ambiguous
tags in the form of homographs and unqualified abbreviations or acronyms.
Should library catalogues decide to incorporate folksonomies, they
could provide clear guidelines to address these noted weaknesses,
as well as links to external dictionaries and references sources
such as Wikipedia to help clients disambiguate homographs and to
determine if the full or abbreviated forms of tags would be preferable.},
added-at = {2008-05-24T15:47:14.000+0200},
author = {Spiteri, Louise},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/259d320eead036cbc60bd04c335a3b17c/ewomant},
interhash = {5c6cacab3471d3f062c339fd0d84b79c},
intrahash = {59d320eead036cbc60bd04c335a3b17c},
journal = {Webology},
keywords = {folksonomy library library2.0 tagging},
number = 2,
owner = {ewo},
timestamp = {2008-05-24T15:47:14.000+0200},
title = {Structure and form of folksonomy tags: The road to the public library
catalogue.},
url = {http://www.webology.ir/2007/v4n2/a41.html},
volume = 4,
year = 2007
}