NeoArch

The Family Man Librarian has a post with interesting insights on the subject of folksonomic OPACs (or fopacs as I like to call them). I think he is correct when he says,

After thinking about this further, I am wondering if I’m pursuing this from a logical point of view as an “either/or” situation. (Taxonomies or folksonomies.) Instead I think it is really, or will really be, a “both/and” situation.

If libraries move toward incorporating folksonomies into their OPACs, it probably should not be used to replace the traditional taxonomies that librarians have created to categorize books. One reason is because library OPACs differ from web-based applications such as Tim Spalding’s LibraryThing. (By the way, Spalding’s comments in the Family Man Librarian’s post are worth reading. I really hope someone takes him up on it.) OPACs differ primarily in the way that books are cataloged. They cataloging data initially comes into the OPAC through catalogers, not users. With LibraryThing, every book gets a tag because users provide them when they load their records. If libraries were to scrap cataloging classification data (which I could never see happening) then the possibility exists that some books would not get tagged because a user never looked for the book. What I am saying is that if libraries ever really design fully functional fopacs, the folksonomic part of the OPAC will have to act merely as a supplement to traditional cataloging classifications. It must. Otherwise, not every book will have the classification data it needs.

I would be interested to see a fopac that not only incorporated Tim Spalding’s LibraryThing data, but that also added to it. I don’t know if this could ever happen, because the data in LibraryThing is dependent upon user accounts, and libraries, especially academic libraries, constantly purge accounts. But if it could, if an entire movement of libraries could participate in such a venture, then I believe libraries would see an extremely useful supplement to their traditional data. Likewise, I think the data that library patrons could provide would be a nice supplement to the data LibraryThing already has. LibraryThing only improves the more people use it.

In my opinion, considering the use of folksonomies in OPACs does not mean that the traditional classification data that libraries have is not good. It’s great. It’s irreplaceable. It stems from the work of generations of librarians who have been dedicated to helping patrons find the materials they need. But it is also able to be improved. If not, why issue periodic updates to the Dewey and LC classifications? The very fact that classifications undergo “tweaking” means that we know they can be improved. So if they can be improved, why not supplement them? Would it be possible for libraries to have an OPAC that recognizes what librarians call things and what patrons call things? I hope so. What would happen if we put traditional cataloging data, LibraryThing, and a highly visual OPAC in a blender? Probably something special. It’s just my opinion, but I think if both types of data could be incorporated and added to an OPAC with a powerful interactive visual interface, like AquaBrowser, we would see a fopac that every patron could fall in love with.