An interesting discussion this week on why tagging will not replace cataloging as a method of describing and locating items in a library collection. (Which boils down, in its essentials, to the difference between a taxonomy and a folksonomy). There were some interesting comments regarding how a folksonomy might be used to augment a taxonomy, i.e how the inclusion of tagging might improve a users satisfaction with an Online Public Access Catalog experience.
One comment by the instructor - that if the idea of a folksonomy gained some acceptance in the profession that Law and Medical libraries would likely be among the last adapters - got me thinking.
I can completely understand that lawyers and doctors by the nature of thier professions are required to be precise in their communications, and would likely be least satisfied with such a mutable arrangement system as a tag cloud - but they are also, I imagine, likely to be the best potential producers of a folksonomy with some underlying structure - a hybrid between a rigid taxonomy and a completely free form stream of consciousness association. Something which might stand a chance of combining greater flexibility of tagging with a commonly known, well accepted, not to mention precise, professional vocabulary that resembles a taxonomy in that it provides a known (or knowable) structure. Maybe not a supertype-subtype arrangement, but an arrangement none the less...
Maybe that's just the insomnia and cold medicine talking, but I can't get the concept out of my head.
No comments:
Post a Comment