| Chapter 4: Library 2.0 | |
| Brad Eden | |
|
|
|
| Abstract |
“As a long-time cataloger, I truly feel the pain that technical services personnel have known for a long time: the era of the library OPAC is over.” — Brad Eden, from the “Introduction” of Library Technology Reports 43:6 As library technologists and librarians are well aware, since the advent of the Internet, the relationship between the user and his/her library has changed. In a world of quick-and-easy search engines and of online social networks—in which information gets shared at an astonishingly rapid rate—information retrieval and aggregation are no longer the purview of the library institution alone. “[N]ow that I am a library administrator dealing with staffing and budget issues on a daily basis,” states Dr. Brad Eden, in the “Introduction” to the sixth issue of Library Technology Reports in 2007, “it has become quite clear that the way libraries do business just isn't working.” Eden, who early in his library career worked as a cataloger, is now the Associate University Librarian for Technical Services and Scholarly Communication at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Also in his “Introduction,” Eden chronicles, through his own career, how the library institution and its role have changed and continue to change in the Information Age. In addition, he asserts, “So, going beyond the arguments about whether the library catalog is important or of value (it is), and going beyond the arguments about whether structured metadata, in MARC or something else, is important and of value (it definitely is), the reality is that libraries have limited resources to compete and position ourselves in the new information universe. We have gone from a monopoly, which could impose whatever rules and software and search strategies that we wanted on our users, to a bit player in market overflowing with technological gadgets, tools, and algorithms that capture the attention of the public and leave libraries with but a slim slice of the information pie, all in the space of approximately 15 years.” Thus, Eden tackles the important topic of “Information Organization Future for Libraries” in this final issue of Library Technology Reports in volume 43. In this issue, Eden focuses “not only on current initiatives around ‘reinventing’ the OPAC and all of its attendant possibilities (provided in the context of economic realities),” but, in the report, Eden also looks at “opportunities to get away from the OPAC and focus resources on new areas, such as 3D information visualization, mass digitization, Library 2.0, and metadata related to digital resources.” In this issue of Library Technology Reports, you'll find:
About the Author Brad Eden is Associate University Librarian for Technical Services and Scholarly Communication at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Previous positions include Head, Web and Digitization Services, for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Libraries; Head, Bibliographic and Metadata Services, for the UNLV Libraries; as well as Coordinator of Technical Services for the North Harris Montgomery Community College District. He is editor of OCLC Systems & Services: Digital Library Perspectives International and The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, is associate editor of Library Hi Tech and The Journal of Film Music, and is series editor of the Routledge Music Bibliographies. He has master's and Ph.D. degrees in musicology, as well as an MS in library science. He publishes in the areas of metadata, librarianship, medieval music and liturgy, and J. R. R. Tolkien. He recently edited Innovative Redesign and Reorganization of Library Technical Services: Paths for the Future and Case Studies (Libraries Unlimited, 2004) and is the author of five previous issues of Library Technology Reports, including “Metadata and Its Applications” (ALA TechSource, 2002), “3D Visualization Techniques” (ALA TechSource, 2005), “Innovative Digital Projects in the Humanities” (ALA TechSource, 2005), “Metadata and Its Applications: New Directions and Updates” (ALA TechSource, 2005), and “FRBR: Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records” (ALA TechSource, 2006). |
… But how did we get to this stage? Why do we have professional librarians who refuse to keep up with the professional and technological requirements? How did we reach a point where the patrons' needs were less important than the traditional way of doing things? —Tyler Rousseau1
This chapter will look at resources related to what has become known as Library 2.0 practices and services: focused on technology, collaboration, social networking tools, data manipulation, personalization, and 3D information visualization, among others. Although related to reinventing the library OPAC, these resources look well beyond a database towards a new overall mindset and a profound change in the way that libraries reach users. Resources related to folksonomies and Google's mass digitization project are also included here.
Michael E. Casey and Laura C. Savastinuk, Library Journal, Sept. 1, 2006 www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html
This article from a year ago brought the concepts of Web 2.0 into the library arena, dubbing them Library 2.0. Explains “long tail,” collaboration, social networking, tools, and services for today's users.
Jack M. Maness, Webology 3, no. 2 (June 2006) www.webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html This insightful article brings together why libraries are on the fringes of the information marketplace and what they need to do to engage in Web 2.0 technologies such as tagging, blogs, mashups, streaming media, and wikis. The article discusses the four essential characteristics of Library 2.0: it is user-centered, multimedia, socially rich, and communally innovative.
R. David Lankes, presentation, Informare a Distanza 2.0: Condividere e cooperare nel reference oggi, Florence, Italy, April 12, 2007 http://quartz.syr.edu/rdlankes/Presentations/2007/Florence.pdf
This presentation examines how reference services can and should be part of a participatory library. Includes slides on why the library catalog needs to be integrated with other services and tools, and illustrates some structural ideas for moving in that direction.
R. David Lankes, Joanne Silverstein, and Scott Nicholson, produced for the ALA's Office for Information Technology Policy, Jan. 2007 http://iis.syr.edu/projects/PNOpen
This report, part of a project initiated by the Syracuse University School of Information Studies, explains core concepts for moving towards Library 2.0. It includes an excellent graphic on page 27 of what a participatory library system looks like. The Web site explores the creation of a participatory library testbed. Clicking on the link “Technology Brief” will provide access to both the full report and the executive summary.
The Information Institute of Syracuse: Weapons of Mass Instruction http://iis.syr.edu
Peter Morville, presentation, ALCTS President's Program, June 2007 http://semanticstudios.com/alcts.pdf
Given as part of the ALCTS 50th anniversary President's program, this presentation is full of excellent graphics, slides, and comments on where libraries need to go in the future. The slide “The Elements of User Experience” by Jesse James Garrett is particularly insightful. Visually stimulating and focused on moving our information towards findability.
John B. Horrigan, Pew Internet & American Life Project, May 7, 2007 www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_ICT_Typology.pdf
The report offers some interesting statistics related to Americans and their use of current technology. The summary of findings at the beginning of the report describes ten types of users, grouped into three categories: Elite Tech Users (31 percent of American adults), including Omnivores, Connectors, Lackluster Veterans, and Productivity Enablers; Middle-of-the-Road Tech Users (20 percent), including Mobile Centrics and Connected But Hassled; and Few Tech Assets (49 percent), including Inexperienced Experimenters, Light But Satisfied, Indifferents, and Off the Network. Useful information for libraries wanting to know and understand the technology backgrounds of most of the American public.
John Kupersmith, updated June 2, 2006 www.jkup.net/terms-studies.html “Library Terms That Users Understand” John Kupersmith, 2007 www.jkup.net/terms.html and
John Kupersmith, updated Oct. 22, 2006 www.jkup.net/terms-on-tested-pages.html
Related to Library 2.0 services, this Web site and related presentations provide access to numerous usability studies on how library users interact with library terms and nomenclature. When designing Web sites or services, library staff should consult these studies for guidance in making decisions related to user services.
Report for the DEFF [Denmark's Electronic Research Library] Project “The Loaners' Expectations and Demands for the Hybrid Library,” Feb. 2006; English translation, Sept. 2006 www.statsbiblioteket.dk/publ/fieldstudies.pdf
This study classified users into three groups: the drive-in user, the worker bee, and the library enthusiast. Each of these users and their behaviors are examined, and there is quite a bit of discussion of the library catalog of the future. Some possible enhancements include integrated abstracts and tables of contents, the ability see what others have borrowed, reviews on bibliographic records, and cataloged theses.
Hsing Wei, master's project, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Spring 2006 http://citmedia.org/learn/surveys/collaborativenews.htm
This study examines how collaborative news Web sites have emerged and how users interact with and use them. Some fascinating results include:
- Users find these services valuable.
- Users are ready for fuzzy credibility.
- There is a new definition of “expert.”
- Diversity is valued but also destabilizes the news.
- Users want involvement and engagement with news.
Conference sponsored by DEFF, Aug. 21–25, 2006 www.ticer.nl/06carte/program/index.htm
This Web site presents the program for the conference, which was divided into four topics, one for each full day, with a list of esteemed presenters and lecturers. All topics were related to Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 developments. See especially:
- “What Difference Does Your Library Make to Teaching and Learning? Approaches and Techniques for Measuring Impact” (Fri., Aug. 25, 16:00 hrs)
- “How Old Is Your Brain” related to 3D and gaming technologies, under “Libraries and Gaming” (Fri., Aug. 25, 14:00 hrs)
- “Social Software: Building Networks of Learners” (Fri., Aug. 25, 11:00 hrs)
- “Partner or Pariah?: Future Roles for Libraries in Learning and Teaching” (Fri., Aug. 25, 9:00 hrs)
- “Library 2.0: For the People, by the People?” (Wed., Aug. 23, 18:15 hrs)
The program page includes short descriptions and links to abstracts and PDF files.
Moderated by Scott Carlson, Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 5, 2007 http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i18/18b02401.htm
Interviews and discussion with Daniel Greenstein, Adam Smith, and Danielle Tiedt concerning the future of libraries.
Michael Stephens, ALA TechSource blog, April 30, 2007 www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2007/04/does-print-still-matter-brian-kenney-on-the-future-of-content-in-a-20-world.html
This blog post describes the April 19, 2007, Lazerow Lecture at Dominican University by Brian Kenney, editor in chief of Library Journal. The lecture offered comments on libraries and their future. An interesting statement from the lecture quoted in the blog post:
Books are a problem because they're so heavy, they told him. You can't carry many of them around. You can't integrate the information among them. They don't link to each other, and worst of all, you can't integrate them into the rest of your work.
Tom Storey, NextSpace, no. 2 (2006) www.oclc.org/nextspace/002/1.htm
Not only a must-read article, but an innovative presentation of the media and content as well. The article includes the thoughts and opinions of five leading librarians, focused on five major areas: moving into Web 2.0, skills in Web 2.0, Web 2.0 technologies, metadata, and library as place.
Jenn Riley, TechEssence.Info Web site, July 8, 2006 http://techessence.info/tagging
This blog post offers a concise yet detailed description of tagging, also known as folksonomy, social metadata, social bookmarking, and ethnoclassification.
ResourceShelf blog, March 26, 2007 www.resourceshelf.com/2007/03/26/plenty-of-interesting-reading-papers-from-the-international-conference-on-weblogs-and-social-media
A listing of papers from the 2007 International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, with links to many. Papers are categorized under tutorials, technical program, tagging, and selected posters. The papers on tagging are of interest.
John Riedl, presentation, CIC Libraries conference, University of Minnesota, March 19–20, 2007 www.cic.uiuc.edu/programs/CenterForLibraryInitiatives/Archive/ConferencePresentation/Library-IntheFlow_Conf2007/riedl-social-web-2007v2.pdf
Another excellent (and huge!) presentation with many graphics related to social networking, tagging, and other collaborative tools that libraries should be connecting and sharing with their patrons.
Off the Mark blog, August 15, 2007 http://marklindner.info/blog/2007/08/15/on-assumptions-about-language-use-in-tagging
An extensive blog posting commenting on a post on the blog What I Learned Today titled “Weinberger and Cataloging.” Discusses aspects and issues and opinions related to the tagging phenomenon.
Library Camp: Weinberger and Cataloging http://www.web2learning.net/archives/1160
Louise Spiteri and
Alireza Noruzi Webology 4, no. 2 (June 2007) www.webology.ir/2007/v4n2/toc.html
From an issue of Webology devoted to folksonomies. The editorial and the article provide an opinion and some very useful information related to social tagging use in library catalogs.
Margaret E. I. Kipp, Proceedings of the 8th Information Architecture Summit, Las Vegas, NV, March 22–26, 2007 http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1947/01/mkipp-iasummit2007.pdf
Examines the use of non–subject-related tags in three social bookmarking tools: del.icio.us, Connotea, and Citeulike.
del.icio.us http://del.icio.us
Connotea www.connotea.org
CiteULike www.citeulike.org
Lee Rainie, Pew Internet & Americna Life Project, Jan. 31, 2007 www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Tagging.pdf
Report on a December 2006 study of tagging, plus an interview ith David Weinberger. The study found that “28% of internet users have tagged or categorized content online such as photos, news stories or blog posts. On a typical day online, 7% of internet users say they tag or categorize online content.”
Amanda Lenhart and Mary Madden, Jan. 3, 2007 www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_SNS_Data_Memo_Jan_2007.pdf
This study found:
- 55 percent of teens who are online use social networks.
- 55 percent have created online profiles.
- Older teens between the ages of 15 and 17 predominate.
Librarytwopointzero blog, Oct. 21, 2006 http://librarytwopointzero.blogspot.com/2006/10/librarything-shelfari-and-gurulib.html
Comparison of three Web sites that allow social cataloging and tagging.
LibraryThing www.librarything.com
Shelfari www.shelfari.com
GuruLib www.gurulib.com
Thing-ology Blog, Feb, 20, 2007. www.librarything.com/thingology/2007/02/when-tags-works-and-when-they-dont.php
A blog post citing major differences between two Web sites that allow tagging, their approaches, and why one is more successful than the other (surprise! LibraryThing works better than Amazon). Lots of interesting numbers and graphs.
David Weinberger, Wired, May 23, 2007 www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/05/miscellaneous_excerpt
Comments by the author of Everything Is Miscellaneous, including an excerpt from this controversial yet intriguing book about the new information landscape and universe that libraries must navigate. Includes discussion about classification, social tagging, and the connecting with users and their terminologies.
Chiara Fox, Adaptive Path blog, Nov. 30, 2006.
www.adaptivepath.com/ideas/essays/archives/ 000695.php
The differences between cataloging and tagging are examined.
A collaborative research project exploring the potential for user-generated descriptions of the subjects of works of art to improve access to museum collections and to encourage engagement with cultural content.
Forum hosted by Harvard University Libraries, March 2007 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2007/03/30/social-tagging-harvard-part-ihttp://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2007/03/30/social-tagging-harvard-part-ii
Forum at Harvard University on tagging. Includes general presentations on tagging and discussion of social bookmarking sites, citation management services, and some specific Harvard projects.
A fantastic project related to name authorities and library catalogs at OCLC. Using the power of tagging, one can search through the OCLC Name Authorities file and pull up information on authors and their works. For instance, when I input my name (Brad Eden), I get the official LC authorities record (Eden, Bradford Lee), as well as a list of everything contained in WorldCat under my name, using FRBR tools and software to concisely show all my works, as well as book covers and a publication timeline of my works. Kewl beans!!
A new Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) group that examines how social tagging can contribute to the goals of the DCMI.
Louise Spiteri, Information Technology and Libraries 26, no. 3 (2007).
This article discusses the linguistic structure of folksonomy tags over a thirty-day period in del.icio.us, Furl, and Technorati. The tags were then evaluated using the NISO guidelines for the construction of controlled vocabulary. The conclusion examines whether libraries should incorporate social metadata into their OPACs.
Thing-ology blog, July 24, 2007 www.librarything.com/thingology/2007/07/tagmash-book-tagging-grows-up.php
This blog post describes a new tool on LibraryThing that allows users to combine tags in searching, thus closing the gap between tagging and professional subject classifications.
Rohit Bhargava, Influential Marketing Blog, July 16, 2007 http://rohitbhargava.typepad.com/weblog/2007/07/i-believe-in-th.html
An interesting blog post on social media technology and tools. Also discusses the librarian of the future.
Youngok Choi and Edie Rasmussen, D-Lib Magazine 12, no. 9 (Sept. 2006). www.dlib.org/dlib/september06/choi/09choi.html
Information on what is currently happening and what is needed to support and train digital librarians in libraries. The summary and conclusions state what is likely to produce the best results.
Special issue of Library Philosophy and Practice, June 2007 http://libr.unl.edu:2000/LPP/lppgoogle.htm
This special issue is chock full of great articles and information. It includes an editorial and twelve articles on various aspects of incorporating Google and Google tools into libraries, in the areas of cataloging, reference, Web site content and design, resource sharing, incorporating tables of contents, and many more.
Robert B. Townsend, AHA Today blog, American Historical Association Web site, April 30, 2007 http://blog.historians.org/articles/204/google-books-whats-not-to-like
An analysis of the pros and cons related to the Google mass digitization project. A historian cites poor scan quality, faulty metadata, truncated public domain, and other issues and concerns with the project.
Eric Morath, Detroit News, DetNews.com, April 13, 2007 www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070413/BIZ04/704130354/1001/BIZ
This article from the technology section of the Detroit News indicates that Google may finish scanning the University of Michigan's seven million volumes in five years. Includes an interesting graphic describing the scanning process.
Lorcan Dempsey's Weblog, April 16, 2007 http://orweblog.oclc.org/archives/001324.html
A discussion of the Google mass digitization project and its effect on copyright, technology, and the material book itself.
Hangingtogether blog, Feb. 7, 2007 http://hangingtogether.org/?p=178
A thoughtful examination of the problems with Google's mass digitization project in the area of rights management.
Jill Hurst-Wahl, Digitization 101 blog, Jan. 11, 2007 http://hurstassociates.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html (scroll down to article). http://hurstassociates.blogspot.com/search/label/Google (collection of post with label “Google”)
In her blog Digitization 101, Jill Hurst-Wahl often discusses the Google mass digitization project, its challenges, concerns, and power. Insightful postings, as well as great links and comments.
Lorcan Dempsey's Weblog, Dec. 17, 2006 http://orweblog.oclc.org/archives/001226.html
A summary and compilation of comments from various books and articles on the Google mass digitization project.
Paul Duguid, First Monday 12, no. 8 (Aug. 2007) www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_8/duguid/index.html and
Kevin Smith, Scholarly Communications @ Duke blog, Aug. 14, 2007 http://library.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/2007/08/14/duguid
Duguid's article relates the challenges and concerns that Google's mass digitization projects bring to historians and researchers, including the quality of scans and other issues, and then experiments with finding and searching for various objects currently available. The blog posting provides a concise summary of the article.
Philipp Mayr and Anne-Kathrin Walter, April 2007 http://aps.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3575.pdf
The study compares search results from Google Scholar with five journal lists. The authors indicate that Google Scholar has great results with citation analysis and free materials, but “cannot be seen as a substitute for the use of special abstracting and indexing databases and library catalogues” because of weaknesses in areas such as coverage, up-to-dateness, and transparency.
Notes
| 1. | Tyler Rousseau, “ Librarian 2.0—The New Professional or the Responsible One? ” Library Garden blog, July 12, 2007, http://librarygarden.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html (accessed Sept. 5, 2007). |
Article Categories:
|
|
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Published by ALA TechSource, an imprint of the American Library Association.
Copyright Statement | ALA Privacy Policy