This use case is similar to 1.1 in a number of ways, and perhaps the data model would be the same. However, the likely scale of tagging is much larger (perhaps selection of O(100,000) items to populate a virtual subject library from the central library catalog) and does not include the need for detailed curation (textual annotation, ordering, structure, description). It is expected that such tagging would also be maintained/curated over long periods whereas virtual collections may be disposable or ephemeral. It is also expected that creation and maintenance might be a collaborative process. There are possible ties to shared selection work such as that between Stanford and Berkeley, and between Columbia and Cornell. |
Out of scope: Free text tagging. Development of shared controlled vocabularies for tags (though likely this would be wanted to cross-institutional librarian use). Dynamic tagging via a query that selects a set of items every time it is run (Note that Cornell CuLLR does use dynamic selectors but there are run only periodically as opposed to each time the curated list is used).