collaborative tagging vs. controlled vocabulary. a ...

indexing, folksonomy, health library, collaborative tagging

Sílvia CARDOSO Santa Maria Health School, Porto, Portugal

Patrícia ALMEIDA Faculty of Arts, University of Coimbra, Portugal

COLLABORATIVE TAGGING VS. CONTROLLED VOCABULARY. A CASE STUDY IN HEALTHCARE AREA

Web 2.0 has been providing new forms of work in the information services. Concepts such as folksonomy and collaborative tagging seem to contribute to a current change in libraries, which allow the active participation of its users. Some studies discussed improvements of tools and services, however there is no unanimous position of researchers regarding these practices. This study aims to determine whether the collaborative tagging is a way to enrich the catalogue and whether it might improve indexing service. A case study on collaborative tagging in the health area was carried out. The results showed that the assignment of labels by users does not replace indexing with the controlled language, but can be perceived as a valuable aid to the work of professionals, with the potential to enrich the catalogue and to improve the service provided by the library.

1. INTRODUCTION The technology and the informational paradigm of Web 2.0 have been providing new concepts, new methods, and new ways of working on systems and on information and documentation services, particularly in libraries. Concepts such as folksonomy (Vander Wal, 2005) and collaborative tagging as well as indexing practices which are not limited to the traditional controlled vocabularies have contributed to the current change in libraries. This provides the

170

Sílvia Cardoso, Patrícia Almeida

enrichment and dinamization of the catalogs 2.0, those that allow the active participation of their patrons who have become consumers and concomitant producers of information. The investigations on collaborative tagging in different areas of knowledge point to some improvement of tools and services. They also recognize that the union of individual knowledge or of small groups could result in better decisions, even better than those made by specialists (Gouvêa & Loh, 2007). However, these works are still slight systematized and even somehow controversial, since there is no unanimous position of researchers towards these practices. It is in this context that we carry out an investigation which approaches the terminological problem around folksonomy as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the collaborative tagging practices and the main differences towards controlled vocabulary. Subsequently, we conducted an analytical and exploratory case study on collaborative tagging in the health area, at the Santa Maria Health School library, in the city of Porto (Portugal). The goal was to investigate whether collaborative tagging may be a form of catalog enrichment and whether it might improve the service provided in terms of indexing, given the controlled language used, the structured and trilingual vocabulary DeCS – Health Sciences Descriptors. After the explanation of the methodology, the paper continues with the discussion of results and ends with some conclusions about the practices of folksonomy, in particular about collaborative tagging in libraries.

2. FOLKSONOMY – THE TERMINOLOGICAL ISSUE The term Web 2.0 was born at a conference in 2004, where the importance of making the Web more dynamic and interactive was discussed (O’Reilly, 2005). The debate between the concept of Web 2.0 of Tim O’Reilly and the one of evolution of Web suggested by Tim Berners Lee showed that the first one defends a new generation of online services, with a greater easiness of conection and sociability; while the second one defends to be just the continuation of the work already performed with the Web since it keeps the parameters and the predefined objectives in its creation. The social character of a new model of Web is important. Alexander (2006) characterizes it as the easiness of use of interfaces increasingly rich and the creation of online pages; with the importance of the number of patrons who can access the same page and modify its con-

Collaborative Tagging vs. Controlled Vocabulary…

171

tents, contributing to the constant information update; with the gratuitousness of most services; with the regular updating of systems; and with the possibility of software to work online and offline. This new paradigm of Web provided the production and expansion of knowledge and was the foundation of the possibility and necessity of creating systems, methods, and techniques which allow patrons a better information retrieval. The new assumptions of Web allow patron to be not only the consumer of information, but also its creator and diffuser; especially when it provides tools that allow him to retrieve that same information in an essentially collaborative environment. In this context, the patron can participate in the organization of digital resources, specifically in the assignment of keywords to these resources and, so, arises folksonomy. This term was proposed by Thomas Vander Wal, in 2004, as the result of joining the terms folks and taxonomy. For Vander Wal, folksonomy is the product that results from the free and personal assignment of tags, by a patron, to a resource identified by a URI (Uniform Resource Identifier), with the goal to its recovery; usually, this tags assignment is performed on a social environment, this is, shared and open to others. Folksonomy is the result of the sharing among patrons on Web environment, a triad consisting of: subject (patron); content (resource identified by a URI); and label (tag). Tags consists of the terms or the keywords that patrons use to describe or to represent the content of certain object (Vander Wal, 2005; 2007). However, other authors are of opinion that this is not a suitable terminology. Merholz (2004) refuses to use the term folksonomy to dissociate it from taxonomies which assume the existence of an imposing hierarchy. So, he prefers “etnoclassification”. Joseph, et al. (2006) recognize that it as a dynamic taxonomy that represents the categories that patrons use to organize their information. Hammond, et al. (2005) suggest an alternative “social rank” or “distributed classification” to consider this terminology more suitable for the presentation of the phenomenon. According to Gouvêa and Loh (2007, p. 1), in the literature there are other supposed synonyms, such as “tagsonomy” and “tagging” (or “collaborative/social tagging” or “tag generation” or “tag/web annotation”). According to Catarino and Baptista (2009), the point of view of the several authors emphasize different aspects, namely, collaborative perspective or tagging. In this study, we do not intend to discuss the concept of folksonomy; however, we understand that this term includes free practices of tags assignment in collaborative environments of knowledge production by a diverse audien-

172


ce. Specifically, for the tag assignment to an information or resource by a set of patrons of a system and service of information, we consider “collaborative tagging” as more suitable to avoid indicating the presence of taxonomy and to highlight the action (tagging) and the participatory, social, and collective character of this practice (collaborative).

3. COLLABORATIVE TAGGING VS. CONTROLLED VOCABULARY INDEXING – THE DIFFERENCES AND (DIS)ADVANTAGES The beginnings of collaborative tagging were websites of social bookmarks, like Flickr and Delicious, and, later commercial websites, for example Amazon (Spiteri, 2007). Nowadays, it has been adapted to library catalogues, so patrons can classify the records in the catalogue and, this way, also effectively retrieve the relevant information. Several authors point to the participation of patrons as the future path of information systems, useful in particular for the improvement of services relating to libraries and their catalogs (Urquijo, 2006; Blattmann & Silva, 2007; Spiteri, 2007; Rolla, 2009; Chua & Goh, 2010; Yedid, 2013). Facing this new paradigm, the Information Science tries to respond to patrons’ needs, specifically it begins to focus efforts on flexibility of controlled vocabularies (Gracioso, 2010). Catarino and Baptista (2007, p. 1) define the folksonomic environments as a „new paradigm for organizing the contents of digital resources on the Web”. It is an approximate social tagging of free indexing, in natural and popular language, without control of vocabularies, without rules and/or indexing policies. The focus shifted from the documents, contents, and objects, to the patron who now has the freedom to choose the terms to be used for the representation of the documents. Thus, it is easier for him to access to information and to create new contents and knowledge. If previously, the stored content was indexed by heuristics of search machines, now the process has new proportions and the patron plays a more relevant role (Rodrigues, & Moreira, 2012). A task until then reserved only for specialized professionals, now has been extended to patrons who, once understanding the document content, can identify the concepts considered as being representative, and select those considered to serve for the future retrieval of the document. It is a context that is clearly adverse to


173

the indexing controlled languages and by specialized professionals. However, there are authors who argue that this can and should be subject to analysis and treatment by Information Science (Vignoli, et al., 2014). Some studies showed that folksonomic practices do not replace the applicability of controlled vocabularies. In other words, the free action of tagging by patron does not replace the controlled work of a professional indexer. The collaborative tagging must be perceived as an innovative approach, but outstanding differences are recognized in relation to the remain classification schemes (Guedes, et al., 2011), in particular regarding to the subjectivity and patrons’ own interests which may lead to different meanings. The differences between the controlled vocabulary and folksonomies are clear, however they maintain the same function of represent, through the use of concepts (controlled or not) the knowledge produced and available in information systems (in the case of controlled vocabularies) or in open environments on the Web (as the folksonomies) (Gracioso, 2010, p. 152).

For better understanding and systematization, we compile the differences between folksonomy and controlled vocabularies, from the studies of Gracioso (2010), Strehl (2011) and Yedid (2013), as shown in Table 1. Unlike the other classification schemes, developed by professionals and under controlled criteria, the folksonomy ratings are structured by the information consumers. It uses a free language, reduces the cost and time of content categorization (Guedes, et al., 2011) and allows a constant update. In systems governed by controlled vocabularies, the indexer comprises the content, identifies the concepts that will represent the document, selects those he considers useful for the recovering of information and translates into indexing language (Strehl, 2011). In folksonomy systems, the representation of information is instinctive because the patron interprets the content and he/she freely classifies the resource with the terms that he/she considers best to represent that same content (Guedes, et al., 2011). From the moment the patron assigns a tag or set of specific tags to a resource, it means that, from his point of view, that specific tag is a good representation of the marked resource (Solskinnsbakk, et al., 2012), something that other patrons and information professionals may disagree with. Some studies show that one of the largest disadvantages of using natural language in the classification of resources is the tendency for polysemy, syno-

174


Comparative study folksonomy vs. Controlled vocabulary Fields of analysis Environment

Folksonomy

Controlled vocabularies Analogic and virtual

Table 1

Virtual

Producers

Information Professionals

Patrons

Target audience

Defined

Undefined

Language

Controlled

Natural

Structure

Complex

Simple

Cost

High

Low

Time

Long

Short

Update

Periodic

Immediate

Delimitation of subject area

Restricted to a field of knowledge

General

Accuracy

Larger

Smaller

Nature of the terms

Represents the content of the object

It does not necessarily represent the content

Types of relationships

Hierarchical, Associative and Equivalent

Horizontal relations

Grouping of terms

In categories of the same nature

According to the number of frequency

Final presentation

Alphabetical listings and graphical views

Tag clouds

nymy, homonymy, use of plurals, abbreviations, and the possible existing of misspellings (Golder & Huberman, 2006). A single concept can be expressed by various descriptors and the liberty granted in the attribution of tags can be on the base of ambiguities, inaccuracy, and lack of precision (Strehl, 2011). For example, the same term may have different meanings for several patrons and often meaningless words are used. This may result in negative repercussions for the information retrieval. To combat these failures, some authors suggest the use of a “controlled folksonomy” or “assisted folksonomy” (Segundo & Vidotti, 2011). For example, when assigning a tag to a certain resource, tags previously used by others patrons are recommended to index the same resource (Carvalho, 2010). Also, supervision or validation by information professionals is considered; that is, a sort of hybrid path of indexing. A control or supervision may help fill the failures of collaborative tagging as well as combat possible attitudes of distrust


175

and dislike by the information professionals, and the fear of „informational mess” (Coelho, 2015). One of the advantages pointed out by the literature is the social and collaborative character of folksonomy practices, which allows not only to share the knowledge, but also to form the communities with common interests (Catarino & Baptista, 2007). Yunta (2009) focuses on the agility to capture novelties and real proximity to social practices. The current digital practices attribute to folksonomic environments some advantage towards traditional tools of control of vocabulary. González (2009) writes about the completeness of language and about more consistent representation of information. Gracioso (2010) refers to the accuracy of information retrieval through added value (pragmatic guarantee). It also seems important that collaborative tagging promotes an easy updating of terms and the treatment of large volumes of information (Yedid, 2013) as well as the exploitation of all forms of content interpretation, without cultural, linguistic, and interpretative limitations. In general, we can conclude that the folksonomic practices of patrons do not replace but can improve the controlled vocabularies created by professionals.

4. METHODOLOGY In this theoretical context, we aim to determine whether the collaborative tagging is a way to enrich the catalogue and whether it would improve indexing service. For such, we carried out an analytical and exploratory case study in the health area, at the Library of Santa Maria Health School (Porto). Currently, this institution offers undergraduate programmes in Nursing and in Physiotherapy as well as postgraduate training in six areas. There are 341 undergraduate students, 91 postgraduate students, and 17 teaching staff. For this study, a small sample of 15 library patrons was used, selected by convenience (through reading habits and library frequency), with the following distribution: five teachers, five undergraduate students, and five postgraduate students, all from the Nursing programme. A questionnaire was created in Google forms (https://goo.gl/f6bOjq), where the respondents were asked to, freely tag five nursing books, in the library catalog, shown in Table 2. The selection criterion was the greater number of face-to-face use and home-based requests. The questionnaire was sent by email and data were collected in December 2016, individually and anonymously.

176


Documents under analysis

Table 2

Document 1 Potter, P.A., Perry, A.G. (2006). Fundamentos de enfermagem: conceitos e procedimentos (5th ed.). Loures: Lusociência.

Document 2 Monahan, F.D. et al. (2009). Enfermagem médico-cirúrgica: perspectivas de saúde e de doença (8th ed.). Loures: Lusodidacta.

Document 3 Hockenberry, M.J., & Wilson, D. (2013). Wong: enfermagem da criança e do adolescente. Loures: Lusociência.

Document 4 Conselho Internacional de Enfermeiros (2011). Classificação Internacional para a Prática de Enfermagem: versão 2. [Lisboa]: Ordem dos Enfermeiros.

Document 5 Deglin, J.H., & Vallerand, A. H. (2009). Guia farmacológico para enfermeiros (10th ed.). Loures: Lusociência.

The terms freely assigned by the respondents were analyzed and compared with the terms of the controlled language used in library, namely, the structured and trilingual vocabulary DeCS – Health Sciences Descriptors (http:// decs.bvs.br/). As criteria of analysis, the differences and (dis)advantages reported in the literature were then confirmed.


177

5. RESULTS The assignment of 162 tags was analyzed. The majority were assigned by undergraduate students. Figure 1 illustrates the ratio of the number of assigned tags and the respondents categories.

Fig. 1. Number of tags assigned by each of respondents’ categories

It should be noticed that a respondent coded as P4 used long expressions. These results are related to the age of the respondents, concluding that the younger ones are the ones who identify the most with the practice of tagging assignment. In order to distinguish respondents, undergraduate students were coded with S, the Postgraduate students with P, and the teachers with T. To facilitate the understanding of the collected data obtained, a comparative analysis was carried out (patron/ controlled vocabulary) per tagged work, and results (ipsis verbis) presented in different tables.


178

Table 3

Analysis of Document 1 – Fundamentals of Nursing

Controlled vocabulary: Enfermagem | Processo de enfermagem | Saúde | Bem-estar | Cuidados de Saúde | Ética | Comunicação em Saúde | Infecção | Sinais Vitais | Cuidar | Sexualidade | Autoconceito | Família | Stress | Coping | Luto | Exercício físico | Higiene | Segurança | Oxigenação | Sono | Conforto | Nutrição | Imobilidade | Feridas Patron S1

Tags Sinal Vital Procedimentos Intemporal Processo Enfermagem Saúde

S2

FundEnf5

S3

Fundamentos Enfermagem Potter Perry Conceitos

Patron

Tags

Patron

Tags

P1

Fundamentos de enfermagem

T1

Fundamental

P2

Fundamentos

T2

Procedimentos de enfermagem

P3

S4

Base da enfermagem

P4

S5

Enfermagem geral

P5

Fundamentos

Cuidados de enfermagem Procedimentos Cuidados enfermagem

T3

T4

T5

Alicerce de comnhecimentos Fundamental Essencial Fundamentos de Enfermagem Procedimentos de Enfermagem Enfermagem Básica Procedimentos técnicas autocuidado

At once, we can perceive the problems pointed out by Golder and Huberman (2006), such as the use of terms with spelling errors (comnhecimentos) which compromise the retrieval of information. The use of singular was contrasted with the plural of controlled vocabulary (Sinal Vital – Sinais Vitais). Also, some of the applied terms did not describe the content of the document, but rather characteristics that the patron attributed to the document (Fundamental, Essencial, Intemporal, Básica, Base) which did not provide the retrieval of information by other patrons. It was also possible to analyze the assignment of “selfish” tags (Cañada, 2008), meaningful to those who were tagging but meaningless to other patrons (FundEnf5).


179 Table 4

Analysis of Document 2 – Medical-surgical Nursing

Controlled vocabulary: Enfermagem médico-cirúrgica | Idoso | Genética | Doenças infecciosas | Reabilitação | Doença crónica | Cuidados paliativos | Emergências | Saúde Comunitária | Dor | Problemas imunológicos | Doenças respiratórias | Doenças Cardiovasculares | Doenças neurológicas Patron

Tags

Patron

Tags

Patron

Tags

S1

Cirurgia Doença Medicina Saúde Enfermagem

P1

Médico-cirurgico

T1

Especialidade

S2

EnfMedCrg

P2

Phipps

T2

Procedimentos Enfermagem

P3

Phipps

T3

S3

S4

S5

Enfermagem Médico Cirúrgica Phipps Saúde Doença Patologias Aprofundamento para a prática

Enfermagem Médico-Cirúrgica

P4

Muito completo

P5

Cirurgia procedimentos conceitos

T4

T5

Essencial Conhecimento Geral Especificidade Enfermagem Médico-Cirúrgica Phipps Enfermagem e Patologia Procedimentos especificas Enfermagem Médica Enfermagem Cirúrgica

Here also the use of selfish tags was detected (EnfMedCrg) and terms that did not relate to the content of the document under analysis (Muito completo, Especialidade, Geral, Essencial), according to the controlled vocabulary. The use of the author’s surname as resource identifier is highlighted (Phipps).

180

Sílvia Cardoso, Patrícia Almeida Table 5

Analysis of Document 3 – Wong

Controlled vocabulary: Pediatria | Enfermagem pediátrica | Criança | Cuidados à criança | Família | Criança hospitalizada Patron

Tags

Patron

Tags

Patron

Tags

S1

Criança Adolescente Saúde Doença Família

P1

Enfermagem Criança

T1

Especialidade

S2

WongEnfPed9

P2

Enf criança e adolescentes

T2

Patologia da criança

S3

Wong Enfermagem Criança Adolescente Pediatria

P3

S4

Apoio e base da pediatria

P4

S5

Pediatria Enfermagem Pediátrica

P5

Enfermagem pediátrica Wong Transição entre a criança e adolescência, Assim como todos os processos de adaptação Jovem enfermagem adolescente

T3

Específico Pediatria Fundamental

T4

Wong Enfermagem Pediátrica Enfermagem Adolescência

T5

Saúde Criança Adolescente Enfermagem

In this case, in addition to the previously mentioned tags assigned by respondents, bringing new concepts were detected (Adolescente e Jovem), not existing in the controlled language, but representing the issue. This could bring advantages on information retrieval. In the analysis of the fourth document, we highlighted an error of accentuation (pratica) and the use of tag Cipe which is the recurring name assigned to the document by nurses and which is not part of the indexing language. The inclusion of this term in the controlled vocabulary would be, certainly, an advantage for the document research and retrieval.


181 Table 6

Analysis of Document 4 – CIPE Controlled vocabulary: Enfermagem | Intervenções de Enfermagem Patron

Tags

Patron

Tags

Patron

Tags

S1

Prática Enfermagem Uniformização Foco Diagnóstico

P1

Cipe 2

T1

Essencial

S2

CIPE2.0

P2

Cipe

T2

P3

Cipe v2

T3

S3

CIPE Versão 2 Classificação Enfermagem

S4

Linguagem de enfermagem

P4

S5

CIPE Ordem dos Enfermeiros

P5

Completo e importante para pratica de enfermagem Linguagem prática processo

T4

T5

Processo de enfermagem linguagem classificada Indispensável Estruturante CIPE Versão 2 CIPE Diagnósticos de Enfermagem Enfermagem Classificação Código Linguagem

The tags assigned to the fifth document showed a greater specificity in the description (Administração de fármacos, medicamento, fármaco, Farmacocinética) which was very useful as this would allow to increase the probability of the document appearing in patrons’ searches. It also emphasized the use of terms related to the spelling agreement (Ação) which would bring an immediate update of the language used. To sum up, in the Documents 1-3 the level of the content precision of the content used by the indexer was more detailed as compared to the more general character of the tags assigned by respondents. Interestingly, in the Documents 4-5, this characteristic was reversed, which gives an ambivalent character to the collaborative tagging. We noted that this case of collaborative tagging presented problematic points already mentioned in other studies (reference to characteristics and not to issues, spelling mistakes, selfish tags, singular/ plural, etc.) which did not contribute to the effectiveness of the research by the


182

Table 7

Analysis of Document 3 – Guide to Pharmacology Controlled vocabulary: Farmacologia Patron

Tags

Patron

Tags

Patron

Tags

S1

Ação Farmacocinética Implicações para a Enfermagem Medicamento

P1

Farmacologia enfermeiros

T1

Complemento

S2

GuiaFarmEnf10

P2

Guia farmacológico

T2

S3

Guia Farmacológico Enfermagem Deglin Fármacos

P3

S4

Base de farmacologia „Melhor amigo” durante os estágios

S5

Farmacologia

P4

P5

Guia farmacológico Um livro fundamental para a pratica de enfermagem Fármacos contraindicações administração

T3

Administração de fármacos Terapêutica farmacológica Prático Essencial

T4

Farmacologia Farmacologia e Enfermagem Guia Farmacológico

T5

Enfermagem Terapêutica Classificação medicamento fármaco

majority of patrons. However, by allowing the inclusion of new terms in use by professionals in the area, greater specificity in concepts and constant updating, the collaborative tagging appeared to be advantageous. We conclude, therefore, that the collaborative tagging enriches the catalog and improves the indexing service provided. However and for such, it will be fundamental to control the tags by indexer in order to fill inhibitive issues of the efficient retrieval of information.


183

6. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS With this study, it was possible to reinforce the idea that folksonomy does not replace the use of controlled vocabularies and that the tagging action undertaken by patrons does not replace the work of the indexer. Nevertheless, it was confirmed that the collaborative tagging could constitute a considerable support for the indexer and lead to an efficient retrieval of information by patrons. Considering these significant advantages, the collaborative assignment of tags in libraries can and should be seen as a supplement to indexing, since controlled, because it can improve the indexing language and enrich the catalogs. Thus, within the scope of knowledge organization, libraries should incorporate new practices, provide a participatory culture, and get close to the habits of their patrons. We are aware that this study has some limitations regarding to the number of the sample, the number of documents under analysis, and the institution concerned. That is why we consider essential to carry out more research in this area. We suggest further studies in the area of assisted folksonomy, particularly with regard to instructions and “tag clouds” to assist patrons in tags assignment to fill the problematic issues of collaborative tagging. REFERENCES Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? [on line]. Educause Review, vol. 41(2) [accessed: 02.01.2017]. Available: https://er.educause. edu/articles/2006/1/web-20-a-new-wave-of-innovation-for-teaching-and-learning Blattmann, U., Silva, F. (2007). Colaboração e interação na web 2.0 e biblioteca 2.0 [online]. Revista ACB Biblioteconomia Em Santa Catarina, vol. 12(2) [accessed: 15.02.2017]. Available: http://revista.acbsc.org.br/racb/article/view/530 Cañada, J. (2008). Tipologías y estilos en el etiquetado social [online]. Terramoto.Net [accessed: 23.01.2017]. Available: http://web.archive.org/web/20111110154628/http:// www.terremoto.net/tipologias-y-estlos-en-el-etiquetado-social/ Carvalho, L.S., Lucas, E.R.O., Gonçalves, L.H. (2010). Organização da informação para recuperação em redes de produção e colaboração na Web [online]. Revista ACB: Biblioteconomia Em Santa Catarina, vol. 15(1) [accessed: 18.01.2017]. Available: https://revista.acbsc.org.br/racb/article/view/698 Catarino, M.E., Baptista, A.A. (2007). Folksonomia: um novo conceito para a organização dos recursos digitais na Web [online]. Revista de Ciência da Informação, vol. 8(3) [accessed: 22.02.2017]. Available: http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/1822/7162

184


Catarino, M.E., Baptista, A.A. (2009). Folksonomias: características das etiquetas na descrição de recursos da Web [online]. Informação & Informação, vol. 14 [accessed: 10.01.2017]. Available: http://www.brapci.inf.br/_repositorio/2010/05/pdf_ fd835f54f0_0010437.pdf Chua, A.Y.K., Goh, D.H. (2010). A study of web 2.0 applications in library websites [online]. Library & Information Science Research, vol. 32(3) [accessed: 07.03.2017]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223003900_A_study_of_Web_20_ applications_in_library_websites Coelho, V. (2015). Bagunça informacional na web: folksonomia como alternativa aos métodos tradicionais de organização da informação [online]. Anais do Encontro Virtual de Documentação em Software Livre e Congresso Internacional de Linguagem e Tecnologia Online, vol. 4(1) [accessed: 28.03.2017]. Available: http://www.periodicos.letras.ufmg.br/index.php/anais_linguagem_tecnologia/article/view/8476 Golder, S.A., Huberman, B.A. (2006). The structure of collaborative tagging systems [online]. Cornell University Library [accessed: 21.02.2017]. Available: http://arxiv.org/ abs/cs.DL/0508082 González, O. (2009). Folcsonomías: el valor agregado de la indizacion social en el web [online]. AcimedI, vol. 20(3) [accessed: 19.01.2017]. Available: http://www.imbiomed.com.mx/1/1/articulos.php?method=showDetail&id_articulo=65424&id_seccion=686&id_ejemplar=6569&id_revista=51 Gouvêa, C., Loh, S. (2007). Folksonomias: identificação de padrões na seleção de tags para descrever conteúdos [online]. Revista Eletrônica de Sistemas de Informação, vol. 11(2) [accessed: 30.01.2017]. Available: http://www.periodicosibepes.org.br/index. php/reinfo/article/view/214 Gracioso, L.S. (2010). Parâmetros teóricos para a elaboração de instrumentos pragmáticos de representação e organização da informação na Web: considerações preliminares sobre uma possível proposta metodológica [online]. InCID: Revista de Ciência da Informação e Documentação, vol. 1(1) [accessed: 26.02.2017]. Available: http://www. revistas.usp.br/incid/article/view/42310/45981 Guedes, R.D.M., Moura, M.A., Dias, E.J.W. (2011). Indexação Social e Pensamento Dialógico: reflexões teóricas [online]. Informação & Informação, vol. 16(3) [accessed: 15.02.2017]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276231337_Indexacao_Social_e_Pensamento_Dialogico_reflexoes_teoricas_Indizacion_Social_y_ Pensamiento_Dialogico_reflexiones_teoricas Hammond, T. et al. (2005). Social Bookmarking Tools (I): a general review [online]. D-Lib Magazine, vol. 11(4) [accessed: 28.02.2017]. Available: http://www.dlib.org/ dlib/april05/hammond/04hammond.html Joseph, S. et al. (2006). Searching emergent vocabularies: exploring methods to reduce cognitive load during web navigation and resource contribution [online]. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 39 [accessed: 02.02.2017]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1579603/ Merholz, P. (2004). Ethnoclassification and vernacular vocabularies [online]. Peterme.com [accessed: 06.03.2017]. Available: http://www.peterme.com/archives/000387.html


185

O’Reilly, T. (2005). O que é a Web 2.0: padrões de design e modelos de negócios para a nova geração de software [online]. [accessed: 06.02.2017]. Available: https://pressdelete.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/o-que-e-web-20.pdf Rodrigues, A.A., Moreira, M.P. (2012). Folksonomia: análise da etiquetagem de imagens no Flickr [online]. Informe: Estudos em Biblioteconomia e Gestão de Informação, vol. 1(1) [accessed: 05.01.2017]. Available: https://periodicos.ufpe.br/revistas/index. php/INF/article/view/46 Rolla, P. J. (2009). User Tags versus Subject Headings: Can User-Supplied Data Improve Subject Access to Library Collections? [online]. ALCTS, vol. 53 (3) [accessed: 29.02.2017]. Available: https://journals.ala.org/index.php/lrts/article/view/5281/6428 Segundo, J., Vidotti, S. (2011). Rede de tags para recuperação da informação no contexto da representação iterativa [online]. InCID: Revista de Ciência da Informação e Documentação, vol. 2(1) [accessed: 02.02.2017]. Available: http://www.revistas.usp. br/incid/article/view/42336 Solskinnsbakk, G. et al. (2012). Quality of hierarchies in ontologies and folksonomies [online]. Data & Knowledge Engineering, vol. 74 [accessed: 17.02.2017]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169023X12000225 Spiteri, L.F. (2007). The structure and form of folksonomy tags: the road to the public library catalog [online]. Information technology and libraries, vol. 26(3) [accessed: 23.02.2017]. Available: http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ital/article/ view/3272/2885 Strehl, L. (2011). As folksonomias entre os conceitos e os pontos de acesso: as funções de descritores, citações e marcadores nos sistemas de recuperação da informação [online]. Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação, vol. 16(2) [accessed: 23.02.2017]. Available: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/pci/v16n2/07.pdf Urquijo, F. J. (2006). La biblioteca pública, un usuario más de la web 2.0 [online]. III Congreso Nacional de Bibliotecas Públicas [accessed: 28.02.2017]. Available: http:// eprints.rclis.org/3803/ Vander Wal, T. (2005). Folksonomy definition and Wikipedia [online]. Vanderwal.net [accessed: 08.01.2017]. Available: http://www.vanderwal.net/random/entrysel.php? blog=1750 Vander Wal, T.V. (2007). Folksonomy. Vanderwal.net [online]. [accessed: 08.01.2017]. Available: http://www.vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html Vignoli, R., Almeida, P., Catarino, M. (2014). Folksonomias como ferramenta da organização e representação da informação [online]. Rdbci [accessed: 10.01.2017]. Available: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/rdbci/article/view/1606 Yedid, N. (2013). Introducción a las folksonomías: definición, características y diferencias con los modelos tradicionales de indización [online]. Información, cultura y sociedad, vol. 29 [accessed: 15.01.2017]. Available: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/ articulo?codigo=4624805 Yunta, L. R. (2009). Etiquetado libre frente a lenguajes documentales. Aportaciones en el ambito de biblioteconomia y documentacion [online]. Actas del IX Congreso ISKOEspaña, vol. 2 [accessed: 29.02.2017]. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/12295

186


STRESZCZENIE Web 2.0 umożliwił nowe formy współpracy w zakresie systemów informacyjnych. Folksonomia i społecznościowe tagowanie wydają się być zjawiskami mającymi wpływ na obecne zmiany w bibliotekach, pozwalają one na aktywne uczestnictwo użytkowników bibliotek. W piśmiennictwie tematu zjawiska te były już omawiane, jednakże nie przedstawiono dotąd jednoznacznego stanowiska badaczy dotyczącego tych praktyk. Badania omówione w artykule miały na celu określić, czy społecznościowe tagowanie jest drogą do wzbogacenia opisów katalogowych i czy może ono wpłynąć na udoskonalenie serwisów indeksujących. Zaprezentowano opis przypadku społecznościowego tagowania w środowisku informacyjnym związanym z medycyną. Rezultaty pokazały, że przyporządkowywanie tagów przez użytkowników nie zastępuje indeksowania za pomocą języka kontrolowanego, ale może być postrzegane jako wartościowe wsparcie pracy profesjonalistów, potencjalnie wzbogacające katalog i udoskonalające usługi oferowane przez biblioteki.