http://tags.library.upenn.edu/tag/to_read+tagging PennTags Feed http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/29955 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/29955 <p>"This paper examines the use of non subject related tags in social bookmarking tools. Previous studies of tagging determined that many common tags are not directly subject related but are in fact affective tags dwelling on a user's emotional response to a document or are time and task related tags related to a users current projects or activities. These tags have been analysed to examine their role in the tagging process."</p> http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/29241 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/29241 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/28261 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/28261 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/25252 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/25252 &quot;Social tagging, which is also known as collaborative tagging, social classification, and social indexing, allows ordinary users to assign keywords, or tags, to items. Typically these items are Web-based resources and the tags become immediately available for others to see and use. Unlike traditional classification, social tagging keywords are typically freely chosen instead of using a controlled vocabulary. Social tagging is of interest to researchers because it is possible that with a sufficiently large number of tags, useful folksonomies will emerge that can either augment or even replace traditional ontologies. As a result, social tagging has created a renewed level of interest in manual indexing [1]. In order for researchers to understand the benefits and limitations of using user-generated tags for indexing and retrieval purposes, it is important to investigate to what extent community influences tagging behaviour, characteristic effects on tag datasets, and whether this influence helps or hinders search and retrieval.&quot; http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/19296 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/19296 <p>User tagging of library resources: Toward a framework for system evaluation<br />JONATHAN FURNER (University of California, Los Angeles, USA)</p><p>&nbsp;Presented at IFLA 2007</p><p>&nbsp;</p> http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/17762 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/17762 &quot;Louise F. Spiteri writes: &quot;Folksonomies have the potential to add much value to public library catalogs by enabling clients to store, maintain, and organize items of interest in the catalog using their own tags. Tags were acquired over a 30-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 guidelines for the construction of controlled vocabularies.&quot;... http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/13588 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/13588 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/2098 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/2098 A Columbia Librarian posted a long article about tagging systems and their use in libraries. Interesting reading.<br />