Social Cataloguing Service LibraryThing and share of ISBD elements in users\u27 tags

V magistrskem delu je predstavljen razvoj spleta 2.0 in folksonomij ter spletni servis LibraryThing, iz katerega je bil vzet vzorec 100 naslovov knjig, po katerih so bili posneti filmi. Analizirali smo 2.000 oznak in ugotovili, da samo 222 (11,1 %) oznak ustreza elementom ISBD(M). Najbolj je izstopal element Kraj izida s 85 oznakami, sedem elementov pa ni vsebovalo nobene oznake. Preostalih 1.778 (88,9 %) oznak smo razvrstili v 12 različnih kategorij, ki so vsebovale 337 različno oblikovanih oznak. Po številu oznak je najbolj izstopala kategorija Vsebina dela s 128 oznakami, po pogostosti pojavljanja pa Literarna zvrst s 701 oznako. Večina oznak obsega eno samo besedo, in sicer 1.369 (68,5 %), oznak z več besedami je bilo 578 (28,9 %) in kratic 53 (2,6 %). Ker smo z rezultati raziskave dobili dober vpogled v folksonomije, smo predlagali, da bi jih lahko do določene mere vključili tudi v knjižnične kataloge. Na ta način bi se lahko dopolnjevala tako sistem dodeljevanja kontroliranih oznak v knjižničnem katalogu kot tudi sistem folksonomij in povečalo zanimanje uporabnikov za iskanje po katalogu.The master thesis presents the development of Web 2.0 and folksonomies, as well as the web service LibraryThing. 100 book titles with films based on them were chosen as the sample for analysis. We have analysed 2.000 tags. The results have shown that only 222 (11,1 %) of the tags corresponded with ISBD(M) elements. With 85 tags, the element Place of Publication stood out the most, while seven ISBD(M) elements included no tags at all. The remaining 1.778 (88,9 %) tags were divided into 12 separate categories including 337 different tags. With 128 different tags, the category Content of the Work stood out, while the most popular category was Literary Genre with 701 tags. The majority of tags, that is 1.369 (68,5 %), consisted of only one word, 578 (28,9 %) tags consisted of more than one word, and there were also 53 (2,6 %) abbreviations. The results of the research provided a quality insight into folksonomies. Therefore, we have proposed that they could be included in library catalogues in a certain way. This would allow for both the system of controlled terms in the library catalogue as well as the folksonomy system to be improvedand could also reinvigorate public interest in traditional library catalogues