Library 2.0: groping toward a definition through comments
Thu 5 Jan 2006, 9:29 pm
I have been continuing to think about Library 2.0, whatever it may be (aren’t we up to library 2.0.1 or something?), but still don’t have a nice juicy post put together for See Also yet.
I have, however, been quite busy with the comments on other blogs. I hope this isn’t too cheesy, but I thought I’d link those comments here, and (I hope) tie them all together with a new post soon. (Have I mentioned my lazyweb request for a “reverse trackback” that would help me see all my comments on other people’s blogs in one place?)
So, back in December, Michael Stephens posted his Ten Defining Moments: Library 2.0 Events of 2005 on his blog, Tame the Web. It includes items that I thought were indisputably “L2,” such as Ann Arbor District Library’s new site and the blogging and Flickring of Internet Librarian 2005
But Michael also included some non-tech stuff that I thought might be a stretch for L2, such as Rock the Shelves and the Gaming in Libraries symposium. So I left a comment, saying so. I had hoped to start a discussion, but this was three days before Christmas, and no one seemed to want to take me up on it.
But Michael went ahead and took up my question, asking Michael Casey of Library Crunch, Stephen Abram of Stephen’s Lighthouse, and John Blyberg of blyberg.net to address the questions I raised. You can read what they had to say on Tame the Web’s Defining Library 2.0: Is it More than Technology?, and also see my response to their comments in that same post.
So, at this point, I’m feeling a bit more charitable towards the idea that L2 isn’t just a web design philosophy, and groping toward an idea of a “pattern language” that might help us distinguish a “Library 2.0″ program from a simply “good” program.
But when I wanted to comment on Walt Crawford’s post Library 2.0: An open call, I felt more comfortable arguing for Library 2.0 as a web phenomenon.
Lastly, Michael Casey wrote a very good post (with a very good title), Born in the Biblioblogsphere. He responds to Steven M. Cohen’s criticism of Library 2.0 as nothing new, and amplifies some of what he wrote for Tame the Web. My comment is mostly me thanking Michael for writing what I had wanted to say in response to Steven: Library 2.0 doesn’t have to be entirely new or revolutionary to be worthwhile.
So that’s where I stand now. I’ll try and wrap that up into something more coherent soon.
Tags: library, library2.0
- License:
- File under: Blogs and blogging,Digital libraries,Service
- Comments? 7
Hey Steve. I noticed your comment on Walt’s blog re web 2.0. You parenthetically asked for live examples of user-added tags. Check out PennTags (link to my blog). BTW, I’ve moved on from UCSD to the bay area. Still blogging though. James
Comment by James Jacobs — January 5, 2006 @ 11:42 pm
My comment on L2 was not a criticism, only a commentary. Criticism sounds negative. I’m done being negative…
Comment by Steven M. Cohen — January 6, 2006 @ 9:00 am
@James: thanks for the link to PennTags. I had looked at it briefly before, but hadn’t realized it enabled easy tagging of the catalog. It doesn’t look like you can see the tags in the actual catalog, though (i.e., “Top tags for this book are:”), so the new taggy metadata won’t help the catalog users who don’t use PennTags.
@Steven: I thought your post was “critical,” but not in a negative way. It seems like you have a well-argued position on Library 2.0 that is contrary to the prevailing winds on most library blogs. I’m sympathetic to your view, if not quite in agreement with it. In any case, I did not mean to imply that you were being gratuitously negative. Thanks for the comment.
Comment by Steve Lawson — January 6, 2006 @ 11:05 am
NP, Steve! Just wanted to clear the air on any negativity. Yes, my view on L2 is different than others In fact, I still don’t buy into why we need it if it’s just a continuation of what we’ve been doing over the past century. Is it a new librarian blood thing? Out with the old, in with the new? I just don’t know. There has been no usable explanation for L2. First it was all about tech and now the pro-L2′s are changing what they have said in the past that now it’s not. I’m more confused than ever…
Comment by Steven M. Cohen — January 6, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
Just picking up on the PennTags comments. Give a guy a chance! We’ve just gotten started. I’m working on an AJAX script to put tags lists into the catalog…working with other people’s software there, so I have to be careful. Our intent is that tagging becomes useful in as many contextes as possible…otherwise, we’d just use delicious. Anyway, we’re now capturing citation data from the catalog, from our e-resources database, image database and from our link resolver. Soon, we’ll add xbel, delicious and rtf export (in addition to the existing RSS). We organize things into projects, tags, owners and posts. And soon, will begin to collect ‘impact’ factors of posts and owners.
Just an update on where we are going…
Comment by Michael Winkler — January 23, 2006 @ 7:55 pm
Right on, Michael! That sounds very exciting. I hope you keep us all updated on this project.
And, just to be clear, I didn’t mean to imply in my comment above that PennTags was’t any good since the tags didn’t appear in the catalog, only that it didn’t quite fit what I was talking about at Walt at Random, which was “exploring the use of user-added tags in the catalog (no live examples that I know of).” Which, I guess, is still true, though you are getting closer. Thanks for commenting.
Comment by Steve Lawson — January 23, 2006 @ 8:39 pm
Update: now see PennTags show up in the Penn OPAC. Many folks have talked about this as an interesting enhancement. This is an ‘early’ development.
As an example, see: http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/voyager/1039
Please send comments on how catalog tags should be expressed. We are in the early stage of development (although development is fast).
Comment by Michael Winkler — March 9, 2006 @ 8:35 pm