A fuzzy linguistic model to evaluate the quality of Library 2.0 functionalities

Abstract Libraries incessantly undergo change determined by evolving user needs. These are often induced by the emergence of previously unavailable tools. Web 2.0 represents an example of such a need-shifting technology, which has led to an embrace of new user interactivity services for many library websites, thus coined Library 2.0. This paradigm shift calls for new evaluation models to include the implementation of Web 2.0 technologies. The aim of this paper is to present such a model, and to evaluate the quality of Library 2.0 functionalities, measuring the quality of the 2.0 services offered through the websites based on user perception. We adopt fuzzy linguistic modeling to represent user perception, and apply aggregation operations to linguistic labels in order to evaluate the quality of the new services. Furthermore, our model subsumes the LibQUAL+ methodology, allowing for the identification of specific 2.0 functionalities in need of improvement and of those outstandingly satisfied by the system.

[1]  Enrique Herrera-Viedma,et al.  A Model Based on Fuzzy Linguistic Information to Evaluate the Quality of Digital Libraries , 2010, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[2]  Enrique Herrera-Viedma,et al.  A review of quality evaluation of digital libraries based on users’ perceptions , 2012, J. Inf. Sci..

[3]  George Ghinea,et al.  Digital libraries: what do users want? , 2006, Online Inf. Rev..

[4]  Vincenzo Loia,et al.  A new model for linguistic modifiers , 1996, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[5]  Deborah Lee,et al.  marketing 101: iPod, You-pod, We-pod: Podcasting and Marketing Library Services , 2006 .

[6]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[7]  Hong Xie,et al.  Users' evaluation of digital libraries (DLs): Their uses, their criteria, and their assessment , 2008, Inf. Process. Manag..

[8]  Ronald R. Yager.  A note on weighted queries in information retrieval systems , 1987, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[9]  Philip G. Kent.  Library 2.0: A Guide to Participatory Library Service , 2008 .

[10]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  The Concepts of a Linguistic Variable and its Application to Approximate Reasoning , 1975 .

[11]  Gregg C. Vanderheiden,et al.  Web content accessibility guidelines 1.0 , 2001, INTR.

[12]  Matteo Gaeta,et al.  RSS-based e-learning recommendations exploiting fuzzy FCA for Knowledge Modeling , 2012, Appl. Soft Comput..

[13]  Jack M. Maness.  Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries , 2006, Webology.

[14]  Tom Storey,et al.  Sharing, Privacy and Trust in Our Networked World. A Report to the OCLC Membership. , 2007 .

[15]  Bruce Thompson,et al.  Score Norms for Improving Library Service Quality: A LibQUAL+ Study , 2002 .

[16]  Sanjay Kataria,et al.  Applications of Web 2 . 0 in the Enhancement of Services and Resource in Academic Libraries : An Experiment @ JIIT University Noida , India , 2009 .

[17]  George Ghinea,et al.  Web 2.0 and folksonomies in a library context , 2011, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[18]  Kevin Curran,et al.  Taking the information to the public through Library 2.0 , 2007, Libr. Hi Tech.

[19]  Alison McIntyre,et al.  Biblioblogging: blogs for library communication , 2008, Electron. Libr..

[20]  David Lee King,et al.  Emerging Trends, 2.0, and Libraries , 2009 .

[21]  Louise L. Rutherford.  Implementing social software in public libraries: An exploration of the issues confronting public library adopters of social software , 2008, Libr. Hi Tech.

[22]  Ronald R. Yager,et al.  On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision-making , 1988 .

[23]  Vicent Giménez-Chornet,et al.  Impact of Web 2.0 on national libraries , 2012, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[24]  Nguyen Cuong Linh,et al.  A survey of the application of Web 2.0 in Australasian university libraries , 2008, Libr. Hi Tech.

[25]  D. L. Beggs,et al.  Measurement and evaluation in the schools , 1974 .

[26]  Ronald R. Yager,et al.  On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decisionmaking , 1988, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[27]  Tim O'Reilly,et al.  What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software , 2007 .

[28]  L. Zadeh.  A COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH TO FUZZY QUANTIFIERS IN NATURAL LANGUAGES , 1983 .

[29]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Aggregation operators for linguistic weighted information , 1997, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[30]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  A COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH TO FUZZY QUANTIFIERS IN NATURAL LANGUAGES , 1983 .

[31]  Maxim J. Schlossberg.  Using Standardized Tests in Education (4th ed.). , 1987 .

[32]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  Soft computing and fuzzy logic , 1994, IEEE Software.

[33]  N. Aharony,et al.  Web 2.0 use by librarians , 2009 .

[34]  A. Parasuraman,et al.  Alternative scales for measuring service quality: A comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic criteria , 1994 .

[35]  Sunil Kumar,et al.  Use of Web 2.0 tools in academic libraries: A reconnaissance of the international landscape , 2010 .

[36]  S. Urbina,et al.  Psychological testing, 7th ed. , 1997 .

[37]  Angela Jowitt,et al.  Perceptions and usage of library instructional podcasts by staff and students at New Zealand's Universal College of Learning (UCOL) , 2008 .

[38]  Niels Ole Pors,et al.  Libraries Act on Their LIBQUAL+ Findings: From Data to Action , 2006 .

[39]  Bruce Thompson,et al.  The LibQUAL+gap measurement model: the bad, the ugly, and the good of gap measurement , 2000 .

[40]  Benjamin Keevil,et al.  Measuring the usability index of your Web site , 1998, SIGDOC '98.

[41]  Dimitris Gavrilis,et al.  Enhancing Library Services with Web 2.0 Functionalities , 2008, ECDL.

[42]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Computing with words in decision making: foundations, trends and prospects , 2009, Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Mak..

[43]  Nicole Mitchell,et al.  Library 2.0: A guide to participatory library service , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[44]  Dimitar Filev,et al.  On the issue of obtaining OWA operator weights , 1998, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[45]  Zeshui Xu,et al.  Approaches to Multi-Stage Multi-Attribute Group Decision Making , 2011, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[46]  Enrique Herrera-Viedma,et al.  Evaluating the information quality of Web sites: A methodology based on fuzzy computing with words , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[47]  Isto Huvila,et al.  What is Library 2.0? , 2009, J. Documentation.

[48]  Enrique Herrera-Viedma,et al.  Evaluating the informative quality of documents in SGML format from judgements by means of fuzzy linguistic techniques based on computing with words , 2003, Inf. Process. Manag..

[49]  Enrique Herrera-Viedma,et al.  A linguistic multicriteria decision‐making model applied to hotel service quality evaluation from web data sources , 2012, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[50]  Enrique Herrera-Viedma,et al.  A fuzzy linguistic model to evaluate the quality of Web sites that store XML documents , 2007, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[51]  Jeremy Frumkin,et al.  The Wiki and the digital library , 2005, OCLC Syst. Serv..

[52]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Direct approach processes in group decision making using linguistic OWA operators , 1996, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[53]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  A Fuzzy Linguistic Methodology to Deal With Unbalanced Linguistic Term Sets , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems.