Abstract
Using the ‘point oh’ naming system for developments in librarianship is attracting debate about its appropriateness, basis and syntax and the meaning and potential of Library 2.0. Now a new term, Library 3.0, has emerged. Is there is any significant difference between the two models? Using documentary analysis to explore the terms, the authors conclude that Library 2.0 and Library 3.0 are different. Whereas Library 2.0 could be seen as attempting to weaken the role of librarians in the emerging information environment, Library 3.0 projects librarians as prominent apomediaries guiding library users on how best to locate, access and use credible information in myriad formats from diverse sources, at the point of need. The Library 3.0 model has revived hope amongst those who were uncomfortable with the crowd intelligence architecture on which the Library 2.0 model was founded. It provides the tools and framework to organize the infosphere that the Library 2.0 threw into disarray. The authors see the 3.0 library as a personalizable, intelligent, sensitive and living institution created and sustained by a seamless engagement of library users, librarians and subject experts on a federated network of information pathways.
Introduction
Libraries have been in the midst of profound socio-economic and technological transformations over the years but currently, the phenomenon of collaborative and user-generated content is taking this change to a new level (Evans, 2009). Furthermore, the pace of this change is much faster than it has been in the past. In their effort to keep pace, librarians are emphasizing the fact that libraries have to serve the user communities where they (users) live, and how they (users) live. This principle has dictated the pace and scope of numerous changes in librarianship in the recent past. Currently, the major determinants of the trends of change in librarianship are the emerging information and communication technology and the growing demand for closer collaboration between the librarians and library users. It is generally accepted that libraries using the new information and communication technology have greater potential to get closer to their communities. Libraries are now adopting various technological tools and approaches to closely fit library services in the lifestyles of their communities.
One of the exemplars of such technological integration in the design and delivery of library services is the use of labels with deeper meanings to denote improved service models. A lexicon such as Library 2.0, Library 3.0 or Library 4.0 is steadily getting popular with librarianship professionals and library users. Nonetheless, a number of controversies hamper the adoption of such terms to label new ideas, models and techniques of librarianship. Particularly, the use of version numbers largely exemplified by what some scholars call the ‘point oh’ phenomenon (Evans, 2009) has stirred significant controversy. Although Giustini (2007) explains that the ‘point oh’ label is ordinarily used to signify the ‘next big thing’, this trend evokes varying reactions from library publics. Generally, while it excites some library stakeholders, others find it empty and annoying.
The ‘point oh’ phenomenon has been borrowed from the software development industry. In software programming, minor improvements on a product normally change the version from perhaps 1.1 to 1.2 or even 1.10 to 1.11. Such improvements are built on the existing architecture. On the other hand, movement into a different whole number usually indicates that the product has been built afresh and is significantly different from the previous one (Saint-Onge, 2009). This reasoning implies that the higher the number the better the product, and the newest the label the latest the development. Thus, Library 4.0 is deemed to be better Library 3.0 which in turn is better than Library 2.0 and other versions before it. Undoubtedly, this reasoning has stirred a big debate the end of which is not in sight.
The use of version numbers to represent perceived improvement of library services is currently closely tied to the application of the corresponding labels of the World Wide Web. Thus, Library 1.0 is associated with Web 1.0 in the same way Library 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 are linked to their corresponding versions of the Web. This logic is equally controversial and debate on it is far from being concluded. For instance, Rothman (2008) argues that the use of web version suffixes to represent trends in librarianship is a marketing gimmick aimed at hyping ‘newish’ web developments. He explains that as a matter of fact, there is no new version of the Web because it is a continuously evolving continuum. Further, he holds the view that the practice is not only confusing but also alienating potential ‘non-techie’ supporters of the techno-based information management advancements. Evans (2009) warns that such use of this lexicon seem to be aimed at putting pressure on the librarians to transform the library services and environment just to be ‘cool and hip’. However, Cho and Giustini (2008) maintain that the use of version numbers with the Web is essential shorthand that aptly denotes trends or sets of trends. Maness (2006) also explains that the ‘point oh’ naming system is specific to the developments in librarianship stimulated by the corresponding developments in web technology and cannot be alienated from it.
Partridge et al. (2010) suggest the application of Popperian 1 approach when discussing the labelling of new concepts. They explain that the names and labels attached to new concepts do not matter as much as the substance of the concepts and their significance in practice. They further state that the semantics, and especially disagreement over the terms, should not be a hindrance to the understanding of new concepts. They admit that labels may fade away with time but the concepts they represent remain much longer. The essence of their suggestion is that the debate should not be on how suitable the ‘point oh’ labels are but whether they serve adequately as vehicles for communicating trends in librarianship in the light of the constantly changing information environment.
From the foregoing, it is evident that one of the main contentions about labelling of advancements in librarianship is whether the versions actually have distinguishable features which can justify their existence. While several authors have discussed the differences between Library 1.0 and Library 2.0, little is written about Library 3.0 and how it relates to Library 2.0 and the other versions of librarianship before or which may emerge after it. In this paper, the authors seek to bridge this information gap by exploring the concepts of Library 2.0 and Library 3.0 in an attempt to demonstrate that much as these labels may not have won unanimous approval, they indeed represent tangible milestones in the development of librarianship. Using documentary analysis, the authors gathered and scrutinized the existing literature and arguments on the concepts to unravel their distinctive features.
Library 2.0
The term Library 2.0 was introduced by Michael Casey through his LibraryCrunch blog 2 launched in September 2005. In this blog, he expressed his views about the possible benefits of applying the then emerging Web 2.0 ‘to make libraries better’ (Casey and Savastinuk, 2007b). This suggestion was made in an effort to relate libraries to Web 2.0 just as had been done for the Web 1.0 (Alsbjer, 2008). Discussions about this new concept gained great momentum which was replicated in other blogs and websites and by October 2005 the term was introduced at Internet Librarian 2005 3 in a speech by Michael Stephen (Casey and Savastinuk, 2007b) who used it to refer to the application of Web 2.0 tools to the offering of library services. Library 2.0 is generally perceived as the application of the interactive, collaborative and multi-media web-based technologies to library services and collections (Maness, 2006). Though Michael Casey is credited with coining the term, no one person can singly take the credit for the adopted definition or the wave of discussions that popularized it (Casey and Savastinuk, 2007b; Cho, 2008; Crawford, 2006).
An understanding of Web 2.0 is critical to understanding Library 2.0. Known as the social web, Web 2.0 revolutionized web technology giving the users the liberty to control their data and enrich their experience. It also reduced the cost of delivering information. The technology provided a platform for participation through collaboration, communication, interpersonal communities and connectivity between applications (Metz, 2007). Evans (2009) suggests that Web 2.0 basically emerged because people wanted to interact with each other.
Web 2.0 enables data openness making its transformation, re-use and sharing not just possible but also easy. Apart from openness, the other key values of Web 2.0 include transparency, mutual respect and creative commons. Web 2.0 thrives on proliferation of content through crowd sourcing and tagging. Web 2.0 also recognizes and caters for the long tail. Some of the common Web 2.0 tools include Meetup, Netvibes, blogs, wikis, RSS (really simple syndication), flickr, Facebook, Digg and Slideshare. Dollmann et al. (2009) explain that the outstanding features of Web 2.0 include self-organization and utilization of crowd intelligence obtained through the collective participation of the members; global interconnectedness; continuous development of applications by the users keeping the utilities in a state of perpetual beta; and a light-weight architecture.
Although the concept of Library 2.0 became manifest through Web 2.0, its roots may have emerged from marginalia which were annotations written in the margins of personal copies of books that were loaned, given or sold from person to person (Collins, 2009). Marginalia were also exemplified through scribbles written by library users on the catalogue cards to help other library users by providing suggestions, shortcuts and other brief notes about the usefulness of the information resources in the collection. This practice emerged several centuries ago and, evidently, took several years before mutating into Library 2.0 concepts such as tagging and folksonomy (Evans, 2009).
Farkas (2007) admits that defining the Library 2.0 concept is a difficult task. She explains that if you ask any five people what Library 2.0 is you will most likely get five different answers. She adds that the definition thus obtained will depend on the respondent’s perspective and context. For instance, some people would define Library 2.0 as being primarily about technology – being available at the point of need, providing library services online where the users are, creating more interactive library systems that capitalize on the collective intelligence and developing more usable library systems. Other people would focus more on service orientation than technology – user-centred services, surveying users, constantly re-evaluating library collections and services, meeting the needs of the longtail; and the list continues. Many other scholars also support this view and admit that the end of the debate on the real meaning of Library 2.0 is not in sight (Casey and Savastinuk, 2007b; Crawford, 2006; Deschamps, 2008; Farkas, 2008; Gibbons, 2009; Maness, 2006; Miller, 2005).
Iser (2006) defines Library 2.0 as the expression that captures the practical and focused efforts to use web technologies – Web 2.0 in particular – to connect to and create relationships with library patrons. In her view, librarians use Library 2.0 to bring libraries closest to the people through information-driven social media. She alludes to the notion that Library 2.0 is a second phase in library development which, according to her, is better, for instance, in terms of facilitating seamless users-to-users and users-to-librarians interaction than the previous phase.
According to Farkas (2005), the idea of Library 2.0 represents a significant paradigm shift in the way people view library services. It describes a seamless user experience, where usability, interoperability and flexibility of library systems are vital. She adds that it is about the library being more present in the community through programming, community building (both online and physical) and outreach via new communication technology tools such as Instant Messenger, screencasting, blogs and wikis, to mention but a few. She also explains that Library 2.0 is really about allowing user participation through writing reviews and tagging in the catalogue and making their voices heard through blogs and wikis. She also underscores the effort by the Library 2.0 approach to make the library human, ubiquitous, and user-centred. To achieve these, she concludes that it requires a change in library systems, web presence and librarians’ attitudes. She admits that it will take a lot of work and time for any library to be completely 2.0, but insists that the idea should inform every new decision made at the library today.
Cho (2008) also asserts that Library 2.0 is a transition within the library world in which programmes and services are delivered to the users through new and innovative methods. He adds that the principles of Library 2.0 are ‘entirely’ user-centred and that they facilitate seamless collaboration between the users themselves to create community content using new communication technologies. He is supported by Sanzo (2008) who also emphasizes that Library 2.0 is a new model of service in libraries that embraces change and technology and engages users to create a customer-driven library. He (Sanzo, 2008) also explains that Library 2.0 looks at how library services fit into the new user-centric world created by Web 2.0 technologies where dynamic web-based tools, online communities, and the ability to customize and personalize everything, drive people’s computing environment.
Habib (2006), however, explains that Library 2.0 brings together two discrete concepts – library and 2.0. He suggests that defining the concept merely as an integration of the two concepts is limiting in the sense that it assumes that both concepts are transferred as they were during the integration. Conversely, he suggests that a true definition of the term should take consideration of the fact that when these two concepts merge they create a totally new and different concept which blends several features of either of them. To illustrate this view, let us consider cocktail juice made from mango and orange juices. While the cocktail may have orange and mango flavours, these flavours do not exist independently of each other. They are blended harmoniously to create a new juice with a totally new colour, taste and texture. Similarly, Library 2.0 is neither Web 2.0 nor is it a common library service. Library 2.0, therefore, cannot be defined by the separate characteristics of the two composing concepts but by new features arising from the resulting union between the two. Habib (2006), therefore, proposes that Library 2.0 should be defined as a subset of library services designed to meet user needs precipitated by the direct and peripheral effects of Web 2.0. He explains that this definition demonstrates that Web 2.0 catalyzes changing user needs and that Library 2.0 services have emerged to meet these needs.
It is evident from the foregoing that Library 2.0 emerged from Web 2.0 and is a way of thinking and a way of operating (Casey, 2007). It is not just about access but sharing of information (Albanese, 2004; Maness, 2006). In the words of Walter (2006), Library 2.0 is a commitment to assess, improve, integrate and communicate library services using the newest information technology and the tried and true ‘human technology’. It is any service, physical or virtual, that successfully reaches users, is evaluated frequently and makes use of customer input (Casey and Savastinuk, 2007a). It harnesses the power of emerging information and communication technologies to create a dynamic physical and/or virtual library platform which is defined and controlled by the users and librarians and which facilitates the delivery of a superior library experience to the users anytime anywhere anyhow. Library 2.0 is a movement to establish and promote elegant, useful and usable tools and services which are customizable and collaborative (Evans, 2009).
Various library and information scholars have proposed more than 10 principles innate in the concept of the ‘2.0’ librarianship. A number of the proposed principles have caused controversy. The contested principles include the library is human; beta is forever; the library encourages the heart; the library recognizes that its users are human too; the library is above all else the idea of constant change; the library facilitates the users’ discovery of their many information options and how to choose wisely from among them; and the library integrates itself into those places, physical and virtual, where learning takes place. The following four principles, however, have been accepted by the majority as critical to guiding the Library 2.0 discourse and practice.
The library is everywhere: A number of scholars aver that the Library 2.0 model facilitates the provision of services at the point of need. Library 2.0 libraries and their services are visible on a wide range of devices, and integrated with services from beyond the library such as portals, virtual learning environments as well as e-commerce applications (Casey, 2007; Chad and Miller, 2005; Stephens, 2005). With Library 2.0, libraries move beyond the notion of ‘library without walls’ in which traditional libraries offered destination websites where physical library services were digitally reproduced (Miller, 2006). Instead, relevant aspects of that library experience are reproduced wherever and whenever the user requires them. Crawford (2006), however, argues that libraries have never been primary information sources for all people. He asserts that a library that attempts to be all things to all people, to serve all information needs under all circumstances, is a library that will fail: its people and other resources will be stretched too thin to do anything well.
The library has no barriers: Library 2.0 also ensures that information resources managed by the library are readily available and that barriers to use them are minimized (Chad and Miller, 2005; Stephens, 2007). In the Library 2.0 environment there is an active presumption that use and re-use of resources is both permitted and actively encouraged (Chad and Miller, 2005; Miller, 2005). With many governments adopting Freedom of Information policies, expectations of the users’ rights to access information held by libraries have drastically risen. Library 2.0 is about working with these users and other library stakeholders to enhance the availability of information. Modern librarians must constantly work to reduce barriers to their services and libraries (Stephens, 2005).
The library invites participation: Library 2.0 invites and facilitates the culture of participation, drawing on the perspectives and contributions of staff, technology partners and the wider user community (Miller, 2006). This concept is exemplified in wikis, blogs, RSS and social bookmarking systems facilitated by Web 2.0 technologies, as discussed earlier (Chad and Miller, 2005; King, 2007; Miller, 2005; Stephens, 2007). Cho (2008) clarifies further that Library 2.0 does not only encourage user participation and feedback in the development and maintenance of library services, it is continually evaluated and updated by the users and librarians to meet the changing needs of library users. He also adds that the active and empowered library user is a significant component of Library 2.0. With information and ideas flowing in both directions – from the library to the user and from the user to the library – library services offered in a Library 2.0 environment have the ability to evolve and improve on a constant and rapid basis. Thus, the user becomes an active participant, co-creator, builder and consultant of the library services and products.
Library 2.0 uses flexible best of breed systems: This model requires a new relationship between libraries and a wide range of partners in which all parties together push the limits of what is possible whilst ensuring that core services continue to operate reliably (Chad and Miller, 2005; Crawford, 2006). Library 2.0 challenges the conventional procurement procedures in which detailed specifications of tendered services and products are given to the vendors. Instead, components are innovatively mixed. Librarians rely on the expertise and expectations of their users and other stakeholders to identify, acquire and install suitable systems to effectively deliver their services. There are scholars, however, who hold the view that too much flexibility opens up libraries for undue influence by the vendors of services and products. They argue that this is not only disruptive; it also gives too much control of determinants of library success such as library management systems and technological utilities to third parties that may not be interested in the welfare of libraries but in profits (Blyberg, 2008; Crawford, 2006).
Library 3.0
Belling et al. (2011) explain that the term Library 3.0 refers to the use of emerging technologies such as the semantic web, cloud computing, mobile devices and established tools like federated search systems, to facilitate the development, organization and sharing of user-generated content through seamless collaboration between users, experts and librarians. They add that the main goal of Library 3.0 is to promote and make library collections widely accessible, searchable and usable. They explain further that the end result of Library 3.0 is the expansion of the ‘borderless library’, where collections can be made available readily to library users regardless of their physical location. Critically, they aver that Library 3.0 is a virtual complement to the physical library space, and should ideally work seamlessly within established library systems, services and collections. Though the concept is still evolving, Chauhan (2009) explains that speed, accuracy, precision and systematic organization of information available on the Web are some of its key elements.
It is not clear when and by whom the term Library 3.0 was actually coined. The authors noted that the earliest mention of the term, though nominally, was in the late 2006 (Casey, 2006) and early 2007 (Herring, 2007). However, they also observed that the first significant consideration of the concept seems to be in 2008 on a blog, Pegasus Librarian, 4 by Iris Jastram (2008). Jastram (2008) does not really define Library 3.0 but predicts various reactions or ‘camps’ to it. He identifies some of the camps as ‘This will devalue Library 2.0’, ‘This is silly, don’t talk to me about it’, and ‘3.0 evangelists’. Responses to the posting are brief and varied but can generally be categorized in the same camps Jastram (2008) predicted even though some people suggest more camps. What is clear from the discussions is that while some acknowledge that time is ripe for the library to progress, others are cautious. Predictably, others are also critical of the use of terms, especially version numbers, to denote developments in librarianship.
Library 3.0 is aimed at turning the unorganized web content into a systematic and organized body of knowledge. It seeks to establish a semantic relationship between all available web content, including the Invisible Web, 5 to ensure seamless accessibility, searchability, availability and usability (Chauhan, 2009). Nonetheless, its basic objective, just like the library service models before it, remains to give the right information to the right user at the right time.
Schultz (2006) explains that Library 3.0 reinstates the librarians in the information value chain. She emphasizes that with the mass of information in the infosphere, great premium is now attached to sifting and repackaging, the roles which librarians play, so as to meet specific customer information needs. She explains that in the Library 3.0 realm library users do not merely select books (products) but also librarians who have the ability not just to organize, but also to annotate and compare books and other information sources, from a variety of perspectives useful to them. She further argues that Library 3.0 has the potential of creating a compelling experience defined by an environment which is authentic, humane, experiential, impassioned, relevant and participatory. Giustini (2007) also concludes that Library 3.0 will bring back the age-old principles of librarianship. Similarly, Robu (2008) views Library 3.0 as the opportunity to make use of the age-old library tools such as standardized thesauri, terminologies and classifications to facilitate effective information retrieval from a complexity of sources and formats.
Library 3.0 seems to fulfil the prediction of Libner (2003: 2) that by 2012 libraries will have moved from ‘a single library to a network of libraries; from one collection to distributed collections; from the catalog[ue] interface to multiple interfaces; from books and journals to information fields and streams encompassing traditional and non-traditional forms of scholarly communication’. Libner (2003) further explains that such libraries will hold massive collections including diverse forms and genres of preprints, traditional publications, informal commentary, research data sets, software applications, maps, video clips, listserv archives and web pages which will all be accessible anytime and anywhere. Breeding (2008) explains that Library 3.0 introduces a full-text, fully integrated and comprehensive search environment which is deep; comparable to searching inside a book as opposed to searching for the book.
The term Web 3.0 upon which Library 3.0 is based was coined in 2006 by John Markoff of the New York Times to describe the third generation of the Internet services that collectively comprise the ‘intelligent web’ (Hendler, 2008; Jastram, 2008). It is generally accepted that Web 3.0 combines the semantic web, Web 2.0 applications and artificial intelligence. Scholars also point out that the concept of the semantic web, the foundation of Web 3.0, was originally developed by Tim Berners-Lee (Berners-Lee, 1998; Giustini, 2007). The emergence of Web 3.0 has been influenced by several initiatives seeking to make the Web better. Marshall and Shipman (2003) suggest that most of the efforts have been influenced by the need to organize the Web which was perceived as being in a state of disorder; maturity of the concept of artificial intelligence; and the desire to transfer the burden of solving the problem of information overload on the Web to computers. There are reservations, however, on the actual potential of the semantic web with some scholars pointing out that some of its goals may not be realistic and may just remain as pipe dreams (Marshall and Shipman, 2003; Priss, 2002).
While some scholars refer to it simply as the semantic web, others describe Web 3.0 as the location-aware, moment-relevant (sensitive) and intelligent Web (Lucier, 2009). It is about describing and interconnecting existing data to facilitate its deeper use through ontologies, contextualization, standardized languages and descriptions. The power of Web 3.0 lies in the linking of data rendering the location of a resource irrelevant. Web 3.0 is a web of data not just machines (Berners-Lee, 1998) aimed at taming the Web (Marshall and Shipman, 2003). Giustini (2007) describes Web 3.0 as the evolution of the Web and people’s responses to it, in finding and organizing new information. Ideally, the users of Web 3.0 systems are able to ask questions in natural language and receive consistently good answers from machines acting as ‘intelligent agents’ (Evans, 2009; Robu, 2008; Wahlster and Dengel, 2006). Web 3.0 is envisioned to resolve the problem caused by disorganization of information in the Web where the users now seem to do more searching than finding of relevant and usable information (Feigenbaum et al., 2009; Giustini, 2007). Web 3.0 proponents assert that it creates a web of meaning (semantics) rather than the web of links as exhibited by the earlier versions of the Web (Wahlster and Dengel, 2006).
Web 3.0 uses Resource Description Framework (RDF) to describe web resources as opposed to Extensible Markup Language (XML) and Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) used on Web 2.0 and Web 1.0 respectively. The RDF enables databases to update automatically when there are changes in the constituting information resources (Feigenbaum et al., 2009). It also enables Web 3.0 to unify information from different sources and formats. This is how Web 3.0 manages the information overload resulting from duplication, spam, remix and re-use. The RDF enables Web 3.0 to create and maintain interlinked information pathways making information retrieval easier (Cho and Giustini, 2008). The development of information pathways is partly done by the isolation, ordering, linking and sharing of authoritative information (Marshall and Shipman, 2003). Marshall and Shipman (2003) further explain that the language of representation, communication protocols, access control and authentication are critical to the semantic web. They add that the semantic web enables computers and human beings to work together in organizing and retrieving information.
Strickland (2010) also explains that Web 3.0 can maintain each individual user’s web profile based on their browsing history and use the details to tailor each individual’s web experience. This means that if two individuals performed similar Internet searches using similar tools the results would be different and would be determined by their profiles.
Some critics of the Web 3.0 concept point out that it is not logical to equate the semantic web with Web 3.0. They argue that the semantic web concept dates several years before the proposed emergence of Web 3.0. They also express doubts that a truly semantic web will actually emerge (Metz, 2007; Rothman, 2008). Marshall and Shipman (2003) also point out that the realization of a seamless semantic web will not be without challenges. They explain that the correct representation of knowledge and ideas, building the necessary trust between machines and people, harmonization of language as well as high overhead costs pose significant challenges to the realization of Web 3.0 environment.
Several Library 3.0 projects are already ongoing especially in medicine. Some of these projects include Wikiproteins which mines data from several biomedical databases such as PubMed; the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) which is an ontological scheme covering millions of concepts drawn from several medical vocabularies and terminologies; Dr. Wiki, an online repository of information authored by approved physicians; as well as the Health CyberMap which maps selected elements of health information resources in cyberspace so as to improve their retrieval and navigation.
Saw and Todd (2007) identify the shortage of skilled workforce and librarian stereotypes of the nexters 6 as some of the potential barriers to the full realization of Library 3.0. They also explain that the fact that libraries tend to hold on to ‘yesterday’s successes even if they are past their use-by date’ (p. 10) will also hamper the adoption of the model. However, they propose that institutionalisation, innovation, imagination, ideation and inspiration can facilitate the progress towards the realization of the Library 3.0 environment.
The authors observed that no principles of Library 3.0 exist in the literature reviewed. Therefore, they propose the following:
The library is intelligent: Bailey (1991) describes intelligence as the ability to acquire new knowledge; refine procedures for dealing with a novel situation; know, understand, cognize and deal with novel problems; represent, map and access knowledge in memory; control various processes of intelligent behaviour; perform arithmetic operations; use problem-solving knowledge (reasoning); interact with and understand other people, machines and programs; recognize natural language; and recognize visual images (visual perception). An intelligent library is self-renewing, flexible, functional, integrated, efficient, resilient, autonomous and sensitive (adaptive). Library 3.0 model applies artificial intelligence systems to offer intelligent services to library users. Library intelligent systems facilitate natural language processing, mapping of free-text terms to controlled vocabulary used by library tools like indexes, flexible and heuristic retrieval strategies (Bailey, 1991; Wahono, 2000). Intelligent library systems can be applied to all library operations including cataloguing, indexing, information retrieval and reference (Bailey, 1991; Blyberg, 2007). Intelligent library systems enable library users working in the 3.0 environment to retrieve information based on what they mean; not necessarily what they say. Intelligent library systems do not respond to users’ queries by mere word matching. Conversely, they use ontologies to comprehend the query and provide appropriate responses based on what the user means. Intelligent library systems make libraries become more interactive, accurate and user-friendlier (Dent, 2007).
The library is organized: As information continues to grow in quantity, scope and complexity, the pressure to harness it also builds (Robu, 2008). The Library 3.0 model is designed to turn the unorganized web of information into a systematic and usable body of knowledge by exhaustively describing and linking every piece of data to enable ease of access. This approach also removes the need to duplicate data. The Library 3.0 model creates an information platform on which users, experts and librarians collaborate to create, sift and share credible information (Schultz, 2006). Library 3.0 information organization strategies provide a way of unifying scattered information and accessing even the Invisible Web.
The library is a federated network of information pathways: Library 3.0 tools draw together diverse information sources and platforms to create a robust information network working seamlessly to facilitate fast, accurate and systematic information searching and retrieval (Belling et al., 2011; Chauhan, 2009). The 3.0 platform unifies disparate information channels, formats and environments to ensure availability, accessibility, searchability and usability of credible information (Chauhan, 2009). The search environment thus created is not only integrated but also comprehensive. Library 3.0 supports expressiveness and interoperability to create synergies between hitherto disparate information resources and systems. Federated search systems enable users to search a wide range of resources instantly and overcome the challenges occasioned by different login interfaces (and perhaps details); varied search features which display results differently; the need of specialized searching skills and language; and the inability of ordinary search techniques to access the Invisible Web (Belling et al., 2011). Federation of collections in Library 3.0 is enhanced through cloud computing systems which connect diverse device and location independent information tools. Thus information streams seamlessly to the library users from diverse sources with least effort from the users. Library 3.0 facilitates federated information searching through open standards, interoperability and extensibility (Libner, 2003). Essentially, Library 3.0 model enables users to search and retrieve information from a single personalized user-friendly interface.
The library is apomediated: Apomediation is the term for social mediation of information. The term, which originated in the health discipline, is derived from the Latin word ‘apo’ which means to stand by or next to (Eysenbach, 2008; O’Connor, 2010). Eysenbach (2007) explains that apomediariaries are tools and peers standing by to guide users to trustworthy information. The concept of apomediation emanates from the view that intermediaries often stand in between the library users and the information they need (Eysenbach, 2008). The quality of the information users receive is based on qualities of the intermediary. Eysenbach (2007) explains that one of the key qualities of an apomediary is trustworthiness which, he says, is bestowed by the peers and opinion leaders. He further explains that in the apomediated environment, apomediary credibility is more important than the source credibility. This concept seems to support the view of the librarians that library users left alone, through disintermediation, may not make the best use of the library systems. Apomediaries do not leave users alone but also do not stand in between them and information. Conversely, apomediaries stand by the users and guide them to high quality information and services without
The library is ‘my library’: The need to personalize library services has been constant in the history of libraries. Indeed, ancient librarians remembered the faces and interests of each of the users and endeavoured to offer as much personalized services as was then possible. Nonetheless, the need for deeper personalization has become more apparent in the recent past due to the emergence of information technologies which have provided greater opportunities for the librarians to tailor services and products to the tastes of the users. One of the approaches in personalizing library services was the ‘MyLibrary’ concept which emerged in the early 2000s. It was triggered by the users’ demands for greater levels of personalization similar to what various service providers such as search engines (MyYahoo!) and the media (MyCNN) were offering their clients on various Internet platforms. These digital platforms provided the users with an environment to personalize the services through unparalleled customization, interactivity, interfaces and user support (Sanchez et al. 2001). Because library users became accustomed to getting such customizable services, they began to demand similar services from the library (Cohen et al., 2000). They wanted library services which were uniquely tailored for their personal needs and circumstances while still giving them the opportunity to interact with other library users and to form or join groups to enrich their library experience (Storey, 2004). Personalization of library services is achieved through the design, management and delivery of content based on known, observed and predictive information. Sanchez et al. (2001) explain that personalization enables users to generate, own and maintain individualized information spaces which contain multiple media, personal schedules, visualization tools and other user agents. Frias-Martinez et al. (2009) explain that personalization of library services is achieved through adaptability and adaptivity mechanisms. They explain that adaptability mechanisms enable users to adapt the content, layout and navigation support to their preferences by themselves while the adaptivity tools facilitate library systems to automatically adapt to the needs and interests of the users based on observed user behaviour. Library 3.0 is the culmination of the efforts of the librarians to facilitate the library users to personalize library services, spaces, products, staff and experience. Library 3.0 tools enable librarians and library users to create appropriate personal and professional profiles that help to tailor the library services and products to their needs. Some of the personalized services may not even be official or universal services (Cohen et al., 2000). On the Library 3.0 platform no two users are exactly the same and neither can their usage be. Personalization recognizes the reality that a librarian cannot organize library resources into categories that are intuitive for every user. Apart from fitting the library into the lives of the users more accurately, personalization also helps users to filter information and cope with the information overload (Storey, 2004); facilitates incredibly targeted marketing of library products, services and staff (Cohen et al., 2000); enables library users to move seamlessly from personal to group spaces and between group spaces (Sanchez et al., 2001) with their personal library ‘effects’; stimulates loyalty by transforming the users into long-term faithful partners (Holmström, 2002); assures personal and professional privacy and thus enables the users to control their space (Holmström, 2002). Library 3.0 systems apply adaptability and adaptivity mechanisms to offer superior personalization platforms.
Distinguishing Library 3.0 from Library 2.0
Table 1 summarizes some of the major differences between the Library 2.0 and Library 3.0 models. The authors conclude that the Library 3.0 model differs from Library 2.0 model in terms of the applied web technology, search approach, content generation paradigm, type of mediation as well as information organization and retrieval approaches.
Summary of major differences between Library 2.0 and Library 3.0.
Conclusion
In spite of its apparent misuse, versioning of library service models is not as arbitrary as its critics have projected it to be. It is evident from the foregoing that version numbers are used to signify important changes of approach in designing and delivering library services in equally changing information environments. Given that librarianship has not reached a plateau of progress, the authors predict that this trend is likely to remain into the future. Nonetheless, the authors do not foresee an end to the debate on how appropriate the version labels are.
So far, three main library versions – Library 1.0, Library 2.0 and Library 3.0 – have emerged. It is generally accepted that Library 1.0 represents the conservative traditional library in which the users are passive. Library 2.0 represents a major departure from the conservative library service model and emphasizes the participation of the users to the extent that the librarians are eclipsed. Library 3.0 seems to be a hybrid between the 1.0 and 2.0 models and reasserts the librarians in the information value chain as apomediaries. Apart from the above three models, Library 4.0, dubbed the aesthetic library, is currently being mooted. Schultz (2006) explains that it will be a luxurious ‘WiFree’ space for meditation, relaxation and generation of ideas. She imagines Library 4.0 as the comfortable space enriched with ‘exquisite brandy, smooth coffee, aromatic cigar, smell of leather and rustle of pages’. There is general consensus that none of the library services models will entirely replace another. Conversely, they complement and absorb each other.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.